Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

High Court Upholds Right to Privacy: Recording Conversations Without Consent Deemed Violation of Fundamental Rights

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, delivered a verdict reaffirming the importance of the right to privacy as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court’s decision, which came on October 5, 2023, sets a precedent regarding the recording of conversations without consent and its implications on individual privacy.

The case revolved around a petitioner, Aasha Lata Soni, who challenged an order passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, allowing the respondent, Durgesh Soni, to reexamine her based on a recorded conversation. The conversation had been recorded without her knowledge and was intended for use as evidence.

In its observation, the High Court cited a series of landmark judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to underscore the significance of the right to privacy.

“The telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against wrongful or high-handed interference by tapping the conversation,” the High Court quoted from the Supreme Court’s decision in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157).

Furthermore, the court highlighted that “Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone-tapping would infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law,” echoing the Supreme Court’s stance as expressed in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301.

The High Court’s judgment reaffirms that the right to privacy is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be lightly infringed upon. The Court stated that the application allowing reexamination based on the recorded conversation was in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy and set aside the order passed by the Family Court.

This landmark decision underscores the fundamental importance of protecting individual privacy rights in an era where technological advancements have made it easier to invade personal spaces. It also serves as a reminder that privacy must be upheld even in legal proceedings, and evidence obtained through means that infringe upon this right should not be admitted.

Representing the petitioner, Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate, welcomed the judgment, stating, “This verdict reinforces the sanctity of an individual’s right to privacy and sets a strong precedent for safeguarding this fundamental right in legal proceedings.”

On the other hand, Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate representing the respondent, argued that the respondent had a right to produce certain evidence to support his case but respected the court’s decision.

The High Court’s decision highlights the evolving legal landscape concerning privacy rights in India, with potential implications for future cases involving the use of recorded conversations as evidence.

Date of Decision: 05.10.2023

Aasha Lata Soni  vs Durgesh Soni

Latest Legal News