A Delhi court ruled that a woman talking to a man late at night cannot be a ground to question her character. Observing changing social norms, the judge said, “The Indian society no longer remains a primitive society wherein a woman talking with a man is considered to be a taboo.”
A Delhi court ruled that a woman speaking to a man over the phone at late hours, by itself, is not enough to question her character or to justify interference with her privacy through the preservation of call detail records (CDRs).
Additional Sessions Judge Shunali Gupta made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a man who challenged a trial court order that had refused his request to preserve the CDRs of his wife and another person in an ongoing domestic violence case.
In its order dated June 2, the court stated,
“To my mind, talking to any person even at odd hours of the day cannot by itself put a question mark on the character of the woman until and unless it has been alleged that the woman has some illegal, adulterous etc relationship with a said man.”
The appellant husband argued that preserving the records was necessary because the complainant, his wife, was allegedly in frequent telephonic contact with certain people during late-night hours and that the service provider might delete the records over time.
ALSO READ: Can I be forced to give my phone password to police?
While upholding the trial court’s decision, the sessions court said that although the right to privacy is not absolute and may yield to the need for a fair trial in appropriate circumstances, any request to preserve another person’s call records must be supported by specific and reasonable grounds.
The court also remarked that,
“The Indian society no longer remains a primitive society wherein a woman talking with a man is considered to be a taboo,”.
It further noted that neither the trial court application nor the appeal offered any clear reason requiring preservation of the CDRs.
The court said,
“Women are working in every field, multinational companies etc and have male colleagues. Just because a woman is found talking on the phone at night… the same cannot ipso facto become a ground seeking preservation of CDR of her mobile number,”
Concluding that any intrusion into privacy must be justified in a reasonable manner, the court held that the trial court was correct in rejecting the request and dismissing the appeal.