Recording Calls Without Consent Of Spouse Constitutes Breach Of Right To Privacy Guaranteed Under Article 21: Telangana High Court
The Court held that in the absence of consent from the spouse, such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence.
The Telangana High Court has ruled that the secret recording of telephonic conversations by a spouse without the other party's consent constitutes a blatant violation of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering such electronic evidence legally inadmissible.
The Court passed this order while dismissing two Civil Revision Petitions filed by a husband who challenged a trial court's refusal to accept audio recordings and financial documents as evidence to substantiate his plea for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The Bench of Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao held, "With regard to the recordings of conversations between the parties, the trial Court rightly held that recording calls without the consent of the other party constitutes a breach of privacy and the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of consent, such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence."
Brief Facts
The petitioner-husband instituted a matrimonial petition seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty before the trial court. During the trial stage, the petitioner preferred interlocutory applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, seeking the leave of the court to produce certain primary and secondary documents, including electronic call recordings, bank statements, and travel records. The trial court dismissed both applications on the grounds that the electronic records lacked the mandatory statutory certificate and that the primary source of the recordings remained unestablished. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner moved the High Court by way of these Civil Revision Petitions.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in rejecting the applications at the threshold, arguing that the question of admissibility and relevance ought to be decided during the final adjudication of the main matter.
It was submitted that the respondent would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner to test the veracity of the evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the voice recordings had been authenticated by a reputed forensic laboratory and that he was prepared to establish the primary source of the online bank documents by logging into his accounts before the court.
Conversely, the Respondent supported the impugned order, submitting that the trial court had acted in accordance with the law. It was contended that the applications were devoid of merit and that the electronic records were legally inadmissible, thereby warranting the dismissal of the revision petitions.
Observations of the Court
The High Court held that the surreptitious recording of telephonic conversations without the consent of the other spouse amounted to a clear breach of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering such recordings inadmissible.
The Court further observed that the remaining documents, which included flight tickets, medical records, and proofs of payment for trips, failed to substantiate the allegation of cruelty.
Instead, the record indicated a normal and cordial marital life, and the court noted that it was the regular responsibility of the husband to maintain and bear the expenses of the wife during the subsistence of the marriage.
Finding no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the approach of the lower court, the High Court held that the documents did not strengthen the petitioner's case and consequently dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions.
Cause Title: H v. W [Civil Revision Petition Nos. 247 and 253 of 2025]