Privacy, Please!
Spousal privacy is a concrete element of marital relations that works on the principle of mutual respect and deep rooted trust. However, as technology and cultural norms evolve, spousal privacy faces new pressures in society. It is essential to examine such a right from both legal and ethical perspectives. Recently, the Madras High Court examined spousal privacy in the context of fundamental rights. The judgement passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan while hearing a civil revision petition for dissolution of marriage, held that spousal privacy forms a part of the fundamental right to privacy.
Factual Background
The current case revolves around a matrimonial dispute between “B” (Husband) and “R” (Wife), who solemnized their marriage in February 2003. “B” filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 2019 in the Sub-Court of Paramakudi on grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion by “R”. During the case proceedings, “B” testified as Prosecution Witness.1 and submitted his wife’s call data record as evidence . R challenged the admissibility of this evidence and filed an interim application in 2023. However, the trial court dismissed her petition on grounds of prematurity in March 2024, leading to her filing the current civil revision petition before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench). The counsel for the petitioner, i.e., “R”, called upon the court to set aside the order of the trial court, while the counsel for the respondent, i.e., “B”, submitted that the order was well reasoned. Since the matter revolved around several fundamental issues, Justice Swaminathan also requested an amicus curiae to assist him.
The Interplay Between Evidence & Privacy
The court placed emphasis on the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, as the petition had been filed in the year of 2019. However, the amicus recommended that the court ought to consider facets of the more recent statute, The Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, which came into effect in the year of 2024. The court examined the Sections 63(4) and 39 (2) of BSA, 2023, and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which mandate that an electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the person in charge of the computer system and an expert. In relation to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the court looked at Section 65B (4) of the Act, which states that a certificate is condition necessary for admitting electronic records as evidence. The court referred to the case of Anvar P.V vs. P.K.Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 to support this analysis.
In the current case, the B’s certificate stated that the call record data was extracted from Jio’s website without the wife’s authorization as the phone belonged to her. Thus, the certificate submitted failed to comply with legal principles and the husband’s clandestine act clearly constituted a violation of her privacy. The court relied on the landmark case of Justice K.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. UOI (AIR 2017 SC 4161) to highlight privacy as a fundamental right. The amicus in turn tabulated the dichotomy of judicial opinion that dealt with the conundrum of whether evidence procured in violation of the right to privacy was admissible or not.
The court examined several foreign judgements, including the Katz v. United States (389 U.S 347 (1967) case that laid down the famous two-part Harlan Privacy Test. The Court also referred to a Turkish research paper that recommended the Harlan test be applied to matrimonial relationships and the spouses should be entitled to claim a right of privacy against each other. The court opposed curtailing privacy without a specific, fair, and constitutionally protected legal framework, as stated in the Puttaswamy case. It stated that without any comprehensive privacy legislation, evidence gained through privacy breaches lacked statutory support, and courts should not make exceptions on their own, particularly while dealing with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act of 1948.
The “Unfair Operations Principle” applied by UK Courts that prohibits admission of evidence obtained by contradicting basic fairness, was also considered by Justice Swaminathan. The court also discussed the effects of secretly monitoring or intercepting a spouse’s private communications, emphasising how such activities frequently undermine trust and intensify marital problems. It was found that such behaviour displays distrust in one’s partner, which can create a poor and potentially hazardous environment within the marriage. The Court, relying on several key sources, held that privacy as a fundamental right included spousal privacy and evidence obtained by invading such a right was inadmissible.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Court reversed the trial court’s order and upheld the wife’s civil revision petition. The judgment passed by Justice Swaminathan affirmed spousal privacy as a fundamental right and held that evidence procured through unlawful surveillance in matrimonial relationships would be inadmissible in the court of law. The decision in this case establishes a vital precedent and underscores the need for proper privacy laws in India that clearly delineate individuals’ rights—especially within a marriage. An enhanced legislative framework and sound privacy protection measures will help foster fairness, trust, and respect in matrimonial relationships.
Authors: Seema Meena & Manasvi Shah