ABSTRACT
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vibhor Garg vs. Neha[1], upheld the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between spouses in existing matrimonial proceedings. This judgment is of significance as it resolves conflicting judgments of High Courts on whether such evidence violates the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and clarifies the scope of applicability of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[2], within the sphere of matrimonial proceedings. This article critically analyses the Supreme Court’s analysis, balancing privacy rights within the sphere of spousal relationship and with fair trial principles under Article 21 of the Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
The intersection of privacy rights and admissibility of evidence related to secretly recorded conversations in spousal relationships has generated significant legal debate and heat, which has been further exacerbated with the easy accessibility of high-tech surveillance technologies. In an era, where every conversation can be recorded at a single tap, courts are increasingly grappling with the problem of balancing intricate privacy rights of spouse’s vis a vis evidentiary admissibility as per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is this context that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court Vibhor Garg vs. Neha provides a much-needed clarity on the permissibility and admissibility of such evidence in matrimonial proceedings.
LEGAL ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE COURT
- Whether secretly recorded conversations between spouses in matrimonial proceedings be admitted as evidence?
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prohibits disclosure of communications between spouses, anything said by them to each other during the period of marriage, unless in proceedings between them. The Supreme Court clarified that the said prohibition does not apply to proceedings between spouses, for example in divorce litigation. The court thus upheld the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations made without the other spouse’s knowledge.
- Whether the Right of Privacy under Article 21 in matrimonial proceedings is absolute against the Right to a Fair Trial of the spouses?
The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy, while being fundamental and a sine qua non for the realisation of human rights, is not absolute specially when weighed against the spouse’s right to a fair trial, which is also a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The court reaffirmed that the exception mentioned to Section 122 of the Act already excludes evidence provided by the spouses.
- Whether scope of judicial discretion of the Family Courts under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is limited in nature?
This provision allows Family Courts to permit and admit any evidence which is relevant to the matter, even if the same evidence is not strictly admissible under the Evidence Act. However, the Supreme Court found no substance in the argument that the scope of judicial discretion of the family courts is limited in nature, since the Evidence Act itself permitted the disclosure of evidence between spouses in marital context and proceedings.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE COURT
- M.C. Verghese vs. T.J. Ponnan, (1970) 1 SCC 37: AIR 1970 SC 1876
The Supreme court while primarily relying on this case held that the prohibition of disclosure of marital communication does not apply in proceedings or litigation between the spouses themselves, as Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has specifically carved out an exception for the same.
- R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, 1 SCC 471: AIR 1973 SC 157
The Supreme Court referred to this case to affirm that secretly recorded conversations between spouses is not ipso facto inadmissible, even if the same recording is obtained without the consent of the other spouse. The judgment in the above-mentioned case laid down certain tests that any recordings obtained by the spouses must be authentic, properly verified and relevant to the context.
- K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court recognised right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court relied on this case to determine whether secretly recorded conversations between spouses is violative of the said fundamental right. The court held in Vibhor Garg case held that right to privacy is not an absolute right and the right of fair trial needs to be considered in matrimonial proceedings where such recordings are highly relevant to the case.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg case is landmark in nature. The judgment while balancing the sacred right of privacy, especially in matrimonial proceedings, firmly recognises and protects the right to fair trial. Further, the ruling has set into motion a precedent for reconsidering modern digital realities vis a vis constitutional and evidentiary laws. The court’s highly sophisticated and balanced approach has paved the way for fair trial and absolute justice in matrimonial proceedings.
FAQs
- Can a spouse secretly record each other’s conversation and use it as evidence in court of law?
Yes, in matrimonial cases such as divorce, such recordings are admissible in the courts if they are relevant to the case, genuine and reliable.
- Does recording a conversation of your spouse violates right to privacy?
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has held in various cases that the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution is not absolute in nature and must be balanced with the right to a fair trial and proceeding.
- Is consent of the other spouse needed to admit such recordings in court of law?
No, under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1872, consent is not required from the other spouse when the dispute between the spouses themselves.
- Are there any protections and precautions to prevent misuse of admitting evidence in matrimonial cases?
Yes. The Vibhor Garg judgment provides for Family Courts to use in-camera proceedings and sealed cover evidence to protect the dignity and privacy rights of the both the parties to the dispute.
[1]Vibhor Garg vs. Neha 2025 INSC 829.
[2]Section 122 deals with the privilege of marital communications. It protects the privacy of communication between spouses by restricting either of the spouse from disclosing what the other spouse said to them during the period of the marriage.
