The Madras High Court has declared that the fundamental right to privacy extends to spousal relationships, rejecting evidence obtained through snooping by one spouse on the other. Justice GR Swaminathan emphasized that trust and privacy are essential in marriage, ruling that evidence gathered throug
In a landmark decision affirming the fundamental right to privacy within marital relationships, the Madras High Court has ruled that one spouse cannot invade the privacy of the other under the guise of marital investigation. Justice GR Swaminathan observed that trust and privacy form the foundation of marriage and that allowing spousal snooping would undermine the very fabric of marital life.
- The court held that privacy includes spousal privacy, rejecting evidence obtained through unauthorized surveillance in a marriage.
- Justice Swaminathan ruled: “Law cannot proceed on the premise that marital misconduct is the norm. It cannot permit or encourage snooping by one spouse on the other. Privacy as a fundamental right includes spousal privacy also, and evidence obtained by invading this right is inadmissible.”
Case Background: Spousal Surveillance and Privacy Breach
The decision came in response to a petition by the wife, challenging an order from the Paramakudi Subordinate Court which had declined to dismiss call records obtained by her husband in a marital dispute:
- The husband, alleging cruelty, adultery, and desertion, presented his wife’s call records as evidence.
- The Subordinate Court initially deemed the wife’s objection to the call records premature, prompting her to challenge this ruling via a civil revision petition.
Court’s Observations on Trust and Marital Privacy
The High Court underscored that trust is the “bedrock” of marital relationships and that both spouses must have faith and confidence in each other, free from prying or surveillance.
- Justice Swaminathan stressed the right to personal autonomy, stating: “Trust forms the bedrock of matrimonial relationships. The spouses must have implicit and total faith and confidence in each other. Snooping on the other destroys the fabric of marital life.”
- He added that women are entitled to personal autonomy, observing that a woman should be able to expect her private space, including personal belongings like diaries or mobile phones, to remain secure from her spouse’s inspection without consent.
The Legal Basis for Protecting Spousal Privacy
Justice Swaminathan noted that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act has occasionally been used to admit evidence gathered through privacy violations; however, this interpretation lacks legislative support when fundamental privacy rights are breached.
- Section 14 of the Family Courts Act allows family courts to consider any evidence that could help resolve a dispute. However, the court highlighted that this cannot override a spouse’s right to privacy.
- The court further clarified that the husband’s call records lacked certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, which would make them legally inadmissible as digital evidence.
Alternative Methods for Proving Marital Misconduct
The court provided guidance on permissible ways to investigate allegations of misconduct in a marriage, emphasizing that invasive surveillance is not justified:
- Interrogatories or formal questioning can be used to clarify facts in cases of alleged marital misconduct.
- Courts may also require an affidavit from the spouse, with the explicit warning that false information may lead to perjury prosecution.
- In exceptional cases, the court itself may investigate, but it cannot presume misconduct to be typical in marital relationships.
Justice Swaminathan remarked: “The court cannot proceed on the premise that marital misconduct is the norm and allow any snooping by the partner.” The judgment set a precedent that evidence gathered by invading spousal privacy is inadmissible, thereby safeguarding personal autonomy within marriages.
Ruling and Legal Counsel
The High Court granted the wife’s petition, setting aside the Subordinate Court’s decision to retain the call records as evidence. This ruling emphasizes the inviolability of spousal privacy and reinforces constitutional protections against unauthorized surveillance within marriage.
- Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. D. Senthil
- Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J. Senthil Kumaraiah, Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
- Amicus Curiae: Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel
Click to Read: R v B, CRP(MD)No.2362 of 2024
