Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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

Similar News