The Telangana High Court has held that secretly recording a spouse’s telephone conversations without their consent violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and that such recordings cannot be admitted as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. The ruling reinforces the importance of privacy in marital disputes while also clarifying that electronic evidence must be directly relevant to the issues before the court.
Dismissing two civil revision petitions, Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed, “With regard to the recordings of conversations between the parties, the trial Court rightly held that 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,” Live Law reports.
Privacy takes centre stage
The case arose from a husband’s challenge to a trial court order rejecting documents he sought to produce in his divorce petition filed on the ground of cruelty. He had sought to place on record primary and secondary evidence, including electronic records.
The trial court had rejected the applications, holding that the call recordings were not supported by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. It also found there was no clarity on whether the original mobile phone containing the recordings was available or whether any attempt had been made to obtain the required certificate from the competent person or authority.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the trial court should have accepted the documents and decided their admissibility and evidentiary value during the final hearing. He also submitted that Truth Labs had verified the authenticity of the call and voice recordings and that the recordings had been produced before the trial court in a sealed cover. He further argued that several other documents had been downloaded from the websites of banks and credit card issuers and that he was prepared to establish their authenticity before the trial court.
Documents failed to support cruelty claim
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the secretly recorded conversations were inadmissible because they infringed the spouse’s right to privacy.
The Court also examined the remaining documents, including medical records, payment proofs, air tickets, photographs, expenditure related to trips and money transfer records. It observed that these did not help establish the husband’s allegation of cruelty. Instead, the documents “appear to relate to the cordial and successful marital life shared by the petitioner and the respondent.” The Court also observed that “as a husband-petitioner, it is the petitioner’s responsibility to incur expenses for the wife-respondent while they are leading a normal married life together.”
Holding that the documents did not strengthen the husband’s plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order and dismissed both revision petitions.
Notably, the Supreme Court, in Vibhor Garg v Neha (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694), had held that secretly recording a spouse's calls does not violate the fundamental right to privacy and is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, making the Telangana High Court’s ruling a contrasting view on the issue.
