In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order that said wife’s secretly recorded phone conversation amounts to a “clear breach” of her right of privacy and cannot be admitted as evidence in a family court, reported Live Law.
According to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, disclosure of marital communications without consent is barred, except in legal proceedings between the spouses or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other.
The spousal privilege under the first part of the section cannot be absolute and must be read in light of the exception provided in the same provision, said the apex court.
“Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said on Monday.
Stating that the section does not deal with the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the SC bench said: “We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. In fact, Section 122 of Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all. It does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution let alone invade upon such right. It does recognise right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence, and right to prove one’s case against the spouse so as to avail relief sought.”
Snooping on spouse
The SC further said: “Some arguments have been made that permitting such an evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony in matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore, defeating the objective of section 122 of the Evidence Act. We don’t think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.”
The Supreme Court was hearing a case that arose from a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.