Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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