TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Right to privacy barred reliance on a secretly recorded private conversation, and the re-examination order was set aside.</h1> A secretly recorded private conversation obtained without a spouse's knowledge was treated as an intrusion into the protected sphere of privacy under ... Right to privacy - Admissibility of secretly recorded conversation - Recall of witness for further cross-examinationRight to privacy - Admissibility of secretly recorded conversation - Recall of witness for further cross-examination - The Family Court could not permit further cross-examination of the wife on the basis of a conversation recorded by the husband on his mobile phone without her knowledge. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the recorded conversation had been made behind the petitioner's back and without her knowledge, and therefore amounted to an infringement of her right to privacy protected as part of Article 21. Proceeding on that basis, it found that the Family Court erred in treating such material as a permissible foundation for allowing the application under Section 311 of the CrPC, even though it was accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. [Paras 11]The impugned order allowing recall of the petitioner for further cross-examination on the basis of the secretly recorded conversation was set aside.Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed. The order permitting further cross-examination on the basis of the secretly recorded mobile conversation was set aside as violative of the petitioner's right to privacy. Issues: Whether the order allowing re-examination of the wife under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of a conversation secretly recorded by the husband on his mobile phone was legally sustainable in view of the right to privacy and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Analysis: The secret recording was made without the wife's knowledge and was treated as an intrusion into private conversation. The decision relied on the principle that privacy forms an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21, and that a conversation intercepted or recorded behind a person's back cannot be permitted to be used as evidence where it violates that protected sphere. The allowance of further cross-examination for confronting the petitioner with such material was therefore held to be contrary to law.Conclusion: The order allowing the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was set aside and the challenge succeeded.Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief, and the trial court's order permitting use of the secretly recorded conversation was annulled.Ratio Decidendi: A secretly recorded private conversation, obtained without the other party's knowledge, cannot be relied upon to justify procedural relief where its use would infringe the right to privacy protected by Article 21.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
