Last update:
“Spouses must have strong faith in each other. Snooping destroys the foundation of married life,” said the court.
The court referred various cases from India and other countries including decisions from the UK and Zimbabwe. (Representation file)
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that privacy as a fundamental right includes the privacy of a spouse and declared that evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible in court.
A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan set aside the lower court’s order which had dismissed the woman’s plea challenging the use of her private data as evidence. The case concerned her husband who presented call data records to support the allegations of infidelity he was facing. The husband had obtained phone call details from the telephone company’s website, using the wife’s phone without her knowledge. The court saw it as “a clear violation of the wife’s privacy”.
The high court emphasized that privacy extends to marriage, noting that both partners maintain separate private lives, even within the bond of marriage. Justice Swaminathan observed that the right to privacy, affirmed in the landmark case of Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, also applies to marital relations.
The judge emphasized that trust forms the basis of the marital relationship, and any act of “stalking” or unauthorized access to a spouse’s private information can reveal the basis of marital trust.
Justice Swaminathan explained that allowing such intrusions of privacy as admissible evidence would not only erode personal autonomy in marriage but would also set a dangerous precedent for the legal validity of spousal surveillance.
The court referred to various cases from India and other countries, including decisions from the UK and Zimbabwe, dealing with similar issues of marital privacy. It specifically referred to the UK case of Imerman v. Tchenguiz, where the court ruled that accessing a spouse’s private information without consent is illegal and violates individual rights. Justice Swaminathan emphasized that privacy should be respected, even in a relationship as close as marriage.
The judge also clarified the requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence, citing Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates a procedure to ensure that electronic records are considered admissible. The husband in the present case accessed his wife’s call records from her cell phone without her knowledge and presented them without the required certificate from an authorized officer, which rendered the evidence inadmissible. This certificate, which is usually issued by the responsible officer of the telecommunications service provider, was notably absent, and undermined the validity of the evidence.
Additionally, Justice Swaminathan pointed out the absence of experts appointed under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, which allows for the examination and verification of electronic evidence. He directed the government to appoint and notify adequate experts across Tamil Nadu to facilitate compliance.
Likewise, the court allowed the petition filed by the woman and then dismissed the order of the lower court which dismissed her petition to dismiss the documents brought by her husband.
Source link