The Supreme Court of India is poised to scrutinize whether the procurement of hotel stay details and call records to substantiate allegations of adultery infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. This examination arises from an appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling on the matter.
The Delhi High Court, in its May ruling, declared that the demand for hotel room booking details and call detail records (CDR) to prove a case of adultery does not constitute a violation of the right to privacy. Justice Rekha Palli of the High Court noted that
“the right to privacy is not an absolute right, and that it is subject to reasonable restrictions if they are in public interest.”
The High Court upheld a family court’s decision to permit a woman’s request to summon the records of a hotel room where her husband allegedly stayed with another woman. The court also called for the CDR of two phone numbers belonging to the husband.
The husband, who has challenged this ruling, argues that the High Court’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s judgment decriminalizing adultery is incorrect. He contends that in an era where gender equality, personal choice, and LGBT rights are being recognized, the presence of a man and woman in a public place, like a park or a restaurant, should not be construed as an adulterous relationship.
The husband’s appeal, filed through Advocate Preeti Singh, emphasizes that the High Court’s decision grants the family court extensive powers for evidence collection. He argues that
“if Family Courts themselves start bearing the burden to establish grounds of divorce and thereby start summoning the personal documents of individuals it would cause great level of injury to an individual‘s fundamental right of privacy.”
The case originated from a divorce petition filed by the wife against her husband, citing grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife claimed that her husband stayed at a Jaipur hotel with another woman and her daughter, and the CDR and hotel records were necessary to prove the case of adultery.
The husband, however, argued that the trial court’s directions infringed not only his right to privacy but also that of his friend. He contended that complying with the directions would cast grave aspersions on the reputation and character of the woman he met at the hotel and would question the legitimacy and paternity of the woman’s minor child.
The High Court reasoned that the information sought by the wife would be relevant for proving the charge of adultery. It also dismissed the argument that the direction to produce the records amounts to a roving and fishing inquiry. Justice Palli added that when a wife seeks the help of a court for procuring evidence that would go a long way to prove adultery on the part of her husband, the court must step in.