Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is inclusive of Right to Privacy, and the same has been declared by the apex court of India in Puttaswamy case. Nevertheless, the petitioner would have planted a recorder in the bedroom of the respondent. The petitioner finds about the private conversation between the respondent and her friend related to the petitioner, his family and his matrimonial life with the respondent. The petitioner submitted the recording as the primary evidence on which the entire case has been based. Since the petitioner allegedly breached the right of privacy of the respondent, whether the evidence submitted by the former is legally admissible before the competent jurisdiction? This question is settled by the court.
The petitioner, intending to seek a divorce from his wife/respondent, had to prove cruelty on her part, and the recording was claimed to evidence justifying the defamation and cruelty caused to him by the respondent. He moved plea for the appointment of an expert to remove scepticism, and to scrutinize the genuineness of the evidence, or the Compact Disc containing the recorded conversation.
The Counsel, appearing for the respondent, said the Court that the evidence is inadmissible because it violates Article 19 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In other words, he contended that the evidence violates the right to privacy of the respondent as the recorded conversation was a private one. The learned-counsel put forth his arguments by taking the support of the Supreme Court Verdict in KS Puttuswamy vs. Union of India. She argued that the petitioner secretly recorded a private conversation between the respondent and her friend, which is blatantly illegal and inadmissible as evidence as it contravenes the right to privacy. She strengthened her contention stating that the family court is entitled to admit evidence that is inadmissible by the Indian Evidence Act, but it cannot admit a piece of evidence which is inadmissible according to the Indian Constitution.
Advocate puri argued that petitioner’s evidence must be admitted by contending that right to privacy is not absolute. She referred to Sharda Vs. Dharampal, wherein the Supreme Court held that matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test even though it is in violation of Right to Privacy.
The Delhi Family Court said without disputing the Supreme Court Verdict in the KS Puttaswamy case that the remedy against the violation of fundamental rights is available only against the state entities, and not non-state entities. Judge Narottam Kushal said that the consequence of admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence collected infringing the Right to Privacy was not discussed in the Puttaswamy Case. He also stated that the action of the petitioner resulted in the infringement of the Right to Privacy of the respondent; and hence, the former can be held liable. However, the Right to Privacy Verdict is silent on the question about the admissibility of evidence collected in violation of Right to Privacy.
The Court relied on X versus Hospital Z’s case, wherein the disclosure of a person infected with HIV did not constitute a violation of Right to Privacy as the prospective spouse must protect herself from being infected.Section 14 of the Family Courts Act states that a family court may receive as evidence any document, report, statement, information on the matter that may in its opinion assist it to deal effectively with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the court said that it could receive the CD as evidence as it would help in settling the disputes between the parties. Additionally, relying on the State Vs. Navjot Sandhu, the court held the view that the evidence submitted by the petitioner is relevant, and falls within the principle of res gestae under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appreciation of admissibility of evidence should be based on the Indian Evidence Act, and there is no way to find whether evidence is admissible as per the Indian Constitution. The court concluded its order in favour of the petitioner and ordered for the examination of the submitted evidence by FSL Rohini. The FSL should report the findings within one month.
86540
103860
630
114
59824