The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy under Article 21 cannot shield a spouse accused of adultery from disclosing mobile call records or hotel stay details. The Court said such evidence may be accessed to prove allegations of adultery in matrimonial disputes.
The Supreme Court said on Friday that the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be used as a shield to deny a spouse access to mobile call records and details of the accused’s hotel stay in order to establish adultery.
The court rejected a man’s plea challenging the disclosure of such information in court as a violation of his fundamental rights.
A bench of Justices Manmohan and K Vinod Chandran upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, which held that the right to privacy is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions where public interest is involved.
In doing so, the High Court relied on a Constitution Bench ruling of the apex court, which observed that the freedom to engage in consensual sexual relationships outside marriage does not receive protection under Article 21.
The court remarked,
“Right to privacy is subject to reasonable curbs in public interest
This right of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be necessarily subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when the restrictions are in public interest.
The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and, therefore, it would not at all be in public interest that the court should, on the ground of right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage, the high court held while approving the order of the family court, which directed furnishing of reservation details of his hotel stay and call detail records.
According to the facts of the case, the couple married in 1998 and had a daughter in 2000.
The wife alleged that the husband had an extramarital relationship and had stayed with another woman at a hotel in Jaipur. She then filed for divorce and sought the relevant evidence.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the court agreed with the submissions made by advocate Prabhjit Jauhar, appearing for the wife, that call detail records and information regarding the hotel stay were necessary to prove adultery.
The Supreme Court found no fault in the concurrent orders passed by the family court and the Delhi High Court and dismissed the husband’s appeal.