The Chhattisgarh high court has held that recording a phone call without the knowledge of the person concerned violates their ‘right to privacy’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The order was passed by justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey on October 5 quashing an order of a family court which allowed the use of such recording in a case. The petitioner Asha Lata Soni had challenged the order of a family court of Mahasamund district on October 20, 2021.
“...it appears that the respondent recorded the conversation of the petitioner without her knowledge which amounts to a violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the high court stated.
It further observed that the right to privacy is an essential component of the right to life envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned family court has committed an “error of law” in allowing the application under Section 311 of the CrPC along with the certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The petitioner (wife) had challenged the family court’s order passed in 2019 in which the respondent (husband) moved an application under Section 311 of the CrPC along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the re-examination of the petitioner on the ground that certain conversation was recorded on the mobile phone and he wants to cross-examine the petitioner confronting with the conversation recorded on the mobile.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner (wife) had challenged the family court’s order passed in 2019 in which the respondent (husband) moved an application under Section 311 of the CrPC along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the re-examination of the petitioner on the ground that certain conversation was recorded on the mobile phone and he wants to cross-examine the petitioner confronting with the conversation recorded on the mobile.
{{/usCountry}}The family court allowed the application against which the petitioner moved the high court claiming that the application infringed the ‘right to privacy’ the conversation was recorded by the respondent and without her knowledge, and the same cannot be used against her.
Vaibhav A Govardhan, the counsel of the petitioner, argued that the respondent’s application was against the law.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent claimed that his client (husband) wanted to produce certain evidence to prove some allegations against the petitioner and he had the right to confront the petitioner with the conversation which was recorded on his mobile phone.
After hearing the arguments, the high court cited two of the Supreme Court’s decisions – R.M. Malkani (supra) Vs State of Maharashtra, which explains the right to privacy and People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs Union of India which cited the right to privacy.
The high court further referred to the observations made by the Madhya Pradesh high court in a similar case of Abha Mehta Vs Sunil Mehta, where the court had to decide the evidentiary value of conversation recorded behind the back and is definitely an infringement of her right to privacy.
Besides, it is violative of articles 11 and 21 of the Constitution of India and has rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner (wife), that interception in the recording conversation is permitted only under the circumstances, the court cited in its order.