https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467585 A secretly recorded mobile-phone conversation, made without the witness's knowledge, was treated as an intrusion into privacy and examined against Article 21 protection of private telephone conversations. The HC reiterated that the right to privacy is part of the right to life, though not absolute and subject to restriction according to law. On the facts, it held that the Family Court had erred in allowing recall and further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC on the basis of that recording, with reliance on Section 65-B of the Evidence Act not curing the legal defect. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2026 10:06:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467585 A secretly recorded mobile-phone conversation, made without the witness's knowledge, was treated as an intrusion into privacy and examined against Article 21 protection of private telephone conversations. The HC reiterated that the right to privacy is part of the right to life, though not absolute and subject to restriction according to law. On the facts, it held that the Family Court had erred in allowing recall and further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC on the basis of that recording, with reliance on Section 65-B of the Evidence Act not curing the legal defect. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467585