Using telephone conversation as evidence violates right to privacy: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently rejected a plea to place the recording of a private telephone conversation as evidence in a matrimonial case, on the ground that it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy.

Justice Bipin Chander Negi emphasised that the right to hold a telephone conversation in private would certainly fall under the right to privacy.

"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 noted in its October 17 order.

The Court passed the ruling while dismissing a plea filed by a man who sought to place on record a recording of a telephone conversation that allegedly took place between his wife and her mother.

The Court dismissed the plea after reiterating that telephone tapping or such illegal means of collecting evidence violates Article 21 (life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, unless the same is permitted under the procedure established by the law.

In this regard, reference was made to the Supreme Court's landmark 1997 ruling in PUCL v. Union of India (often referred to as the telephone tapping case).

"Telephone tapping/illegal means of collecting evidence in the aforesaid context would therefore infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless it is permitted under the procedure established by the law," the High Court observed.

The Court also noted that the right to privacy has since been recognised as a fundamental right that is integral to Article 21 in the Puttaswamy case. In view of this, the Court proceeded to dismiss the husband's petition.

"Recorded conversation of the respondent-wife, in the case at hand, with her mother, which is sought to be placed on record, therefore is held to be illegal, as it amounts to infringement of her right to privacy. Since the aforesaid recording is illegal, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence," the Court said.

Senior Advocate NS Chandel and Advocate Vinod Kumar Gupta appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kuthiala and Advocate Abhishek represented the respondent (petitioner's wife).

[Read Order]