Recorded Telephonic Conversations Are Not Admissible As Evidence Due To Infringement Of Privacy: Himachal Pradesh High Court

This ruling arose from a petition seeking to admit a recorded conversation between a respondent's wife and her mother in court, which the trial court denied. The petitioner challenged this refusal, attempting to rely on the recording under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 14 of the Family Court Act.

Justice Bipin Chander Negi, presiding over the case, underscored the constitutional protection of privacy, observing, “A telephone conversation is an important facet of an individual's private life. The right to holding a telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home/office without interference can certainly be claimed as a 'Right to Privacy.'” The court emphasised that any unauthorised means of collecting such evidence would violate Article 21 of the Constitution unless permitted by lawful procedure.

In support of its decision, the court cited People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, 1997 (1) SCC 301, where the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a critical component of personal liberty under Article 21.

The Supreme Court in PUCL had ruled, “Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.” This case laid the foundation for treating unauthorized recordings as an infringement on privacy.

The judgment also referenced K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (10) SCC 1, a landmark ruling that enshrined the right to privacy as fundamental under Article 21. This decision established that privacy extends broadly across personal domains, shielding individuals from unauthorized surveillance or intrusion.

In light of these principles, the High Court concluded that the recorded conversation in question was inadmissible, as it amounted to an unlawful breach of privacy. The petition was thereby dismissed, and any interim orders were vacated, reinforcing that privacy rights prevent the use of such recordings as evidence unless obtained under the law.

Case Title: Dharmesh Sharma Vs Tanisha Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 68

Click Here to Read/Download Judgement