SC allows secret phone recordings of spouse as evidence in matrimonial disputes

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a spouse’s secretly recorded telephonic conversations are admissible as evidence in matrimonial cases. The ruling overturns an earlier decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had disallowed such recordings, citing a violation of the right to privacy.

The apex court bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, clarified that the spousal privilege under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be absolute and must be interpreted in the context of the exception provided within the section.

Section 122 prohibits the disclosure of communications between spouses without consent, except in legal proceedings involving both parties or in criminal cases where one is the accused. The Court underscored that in matrimonial disputes, such evidence plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial, a fundamental aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution.

"We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all. It does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. It does recognise right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence, and right to prove one's case against the spouse so as to avail relief sought," Justice Nagarathna said while delivering the judgment.

Background of the case
The decision comes in response to a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a husband challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in a divorce case. The Family Court at Bathinda had earlier allowed the husband to use a compact disc containing phone recordings of his wife to support his allegations of cruelty.

However, the High Court set aside the Family Court's ruling, stating that the recording, done without the wife's knowledge, was a breach of her fundamental right to privacy. It ruled that accepting such evidence would be unjustified as the context in which the conversation occurred could not be reliably assessed.

Justice Lisa Gill, who authored the High Court verdict, had referred to earlier rulings, including Deepinder Singh Mann v Ranjit Kaur and Rayala M Bhuvaneswari v Napaphander Rayala to support the view that spouses should be able to communicate freely in private without fear that their conversations would be recorded and presented in court.

Supreme Court’s rationale
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, stating that such concerns, while valid in theory, do not apply when a marriage has already deteriorated to the extent that one spouse is monitoring the other. "If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are snooping on each other, it reflects a broken relationship and lack of trust," the bench observed.

The bench also dismissed concerns that allowing such evidence would encourage domestic surveillance, stating that its admissibility must be weighed against the need for a fair trial. “The right to prove one’s case and produce relevant evidence must be preserved,” the Court said.

It emphasised that in divorce proceedings involving allegations like mental cruelty, evidence is often limited to what occurred behind closed doors. In such cases, recordings could play an essential role where no third-party witnesses are available.

The Court also clarified that Section 122 deals with spousal communications but does not engage with the broader right to privacy under Article 21. “The provision doesn’t address constitutional privacy rights, let alone infringe upon them,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Petitioner's argument
Advocate-on-Record Ankit Swarup, representing the husband, argued that the right to privacy is not absolute and should be balanced with the right to a fair trial. Citing Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, he emphasised that courts must be allowed to consider relevant evidence to discover the truth in matrimonial disputes.

The petition noted: “In cases of mental cruelty, events usually occur in private and are hard to prove through conventional means. In the digital era, recordings may serve as valid evidence if authenticated properly.” The petitioner also argued that the recorded conversation served the same purpose as oral testimony and was aimed at proving the cruelty alleged in the divorce petition.

Implications
The ruling sets a precedent for how evidence in matrimonial cases will be treated, particularly where one spouse secretly records the other. The Supreme Court's decision broadens the scope of admissible evidence and clarifies the limitations of spousal privilege under the Evidence Act.

The Court’s interpretation signals a shift towards giving weight to the evolving nature of relationships and the realities of modern technology, while still upholding the importance of due process and fairness in legal proceedings.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)