Recording Conversations Without Consent Violates Right To Privacy Under Article 21, Inadmissible In Evidence: Telangana High Court

"Recording calls without the consent of the other party constitutes a breach of privacy and the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of consent, such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence." Telangana High Court, in an order, has held that recording telephone conversations of a spouse without their consent is a violation of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed that such recordings are inadmissible in legal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, as they constitute a breach of the constitutional protections afforded to individuals.

The matter arose from two Civil Revision Petitions filed by a husband aggrieved by a trial court's refusal to admit electronic evidence and other documents in a divorce proceeding. The petitioner-husband had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and sought to introduce call recordings and downloaded bank statements to support his case.

The petitioner-husband filed HMOP No. 153 of 2023 against the respondent-wife seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the trial stage, the husband filed interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 47 and 79 of 2023) under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking the court's permission to submit electronic records, including call and voice recordings. The Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Metpalli dismissed these applications on December 23, 2024, leading to the present revisions.

The primary question before the Court was whether call recordings obtained without the consent of the other party are admissible as evidence in view of the right to privacy. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the electronic records met the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and if the documents sought to be produced were relevant to the allegation of cruelty.

Admissibility Of Electronic Records Under Section 65B

The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is a mandatory prerequisite for the admissibility of electronic records. The bench observed that Section 65-B prescribes a specific mode of proof for the contents of electronic records, laying down conditions that must be satisfied regarding the source and the computer system used.

Court Emphasises Mandatory Nature Of Section 65-B Certificate

The Court highlighted that there was no clarity on whether the petitioner possessed the primary evidence—the mobile phone used for recording—or if he had attempted to obtain a certificate from the relevant authority. Without such satisfaction, the electronic records listed as documents Sl.No.141 to 144 were rightly held to be inadmissible by the trial court at the threshold.

Recording Conversations Without Consent Violates Article 21

Addressing the most significant legal point, the Court affirmed the trial court's stance that recording conversations between parties without their explicit consent constitutes a breach of privacy. The bench noted that the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and surreptitiously recorded calls cannot be allowed into the evidentiary record.

Court Rejects Infiltration Into Spouse's Private Sphere

The bench emphasized that the absence of consent is a fatal flaw when seeking to introduce personal communications as evidence. The court held that the sanctity of private conversations must be maintained, and the legal system cannot endorse the unauthorized recording of a spouse as a legitimate means of gathering evidence for matrimonial litigation.

Evidence Must Be Relevant To Prove Allegations Of Cruelty

Upon perusing the documents the petitioner sought to introduce—which included medical records, proof of air travel from the USA to India, and records of pleasure trips—the Court found they were irrelevant to the plea of cruelty. The bench remarked that it was unable to understand how evidence of holiday trips and money transfers would assist the petitioner in proving a case for divorce.

Documents Indicated Cordial Rather Than Cruel Relationship

The Court observed that, on the contrary, the documents appeared to relate to a cordial and successful marital life shared by the couple. It noted that the documents did not, in any manner, strengthen the husband's case for seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The bench further observed that as a husband, it was the petitioner's responsibility to incur expenses for his wife during their normal married life.

The High Court concluded that the trial court had rightly dismissed the applications as the evidence was both constitutionally infirm and factually irrelevant. Finding no reason to interfere with the common order passed by the trial court, the bench dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions, stating that the petitioner’s case for divorce was not strengthened by the produced documents.

Date of Decision: 18 June 2026