Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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