Supreme Court on Right to Privacy vs Fair Trial
Supreme Court Overrules Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment
On 14th July, the Supreme Court of India annulled a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had held that a telephonic conversation between a married couple is inadmissible if recorded without the consent of the other spouse, as it infringes the Right to Privacy. The Supreme Court declared the judgment “void” and clarified that admitting telephonic evidence does not contravene the right to privacy, as the right is not absolute. The Court also referred to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that its exception rules out the claim of breach of privacy.
Breach of Spousal Privilege and Right to Privacy
On 12.11.21, a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had set aside a Bhatinda Family Court order that permitted the husband to present a compact disc as evidence in a divorce case. The High Court, relying on People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997), observed:
“Telephonic conversations are often confidential and intimate in nature. They form a crucial part of modern life. The Right to Privacy certainly includes telephone conversations in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone tapping, unless permitted under due procedure of law, is an assault upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court also noted the ambiguity surrounding the circumstances of the recording and held that acceptance of the compact disc was unjustified. It maintained that the Right to Privacy is a vital element of Article 21.
Right to Fair Trial Outweighs Right to Privacy
The husband argued that if admitting the compact disc violated privacy, then rejecting it would deny him his Right to a Fair Trial. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that a fair trial, also protected under Article 21, outweighs a breach of privacy. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with spousal privilege, also provides an exception in suits between spouses or when one spouse commits a crime against the other.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2018), the right to privacy was upheld as a fundamental right under Article 21, linked to dignity and self-worth. But the Court reiterated that the right to a fair trial is equally central to justice. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also guarantees a fair trial.
The Three-Pronged Test on Privacy Breach
The Supreme Court noted that an invasion of privacy is justified if it passes the test of:
- Legality – The invasion must be sanctioned by law.
- Need – It should serve a legitimate aim.
- Proportionality – The means must be balanced with the objective.
Applying this, the Court held:
- Legality: Section 122 provides an exception in disputes between spouses.
- Need: The compact disc was necessary evidence for resolving the dispute.
- Proportionality: Since it was the only direct evidence, no less intrusive option existed.
No Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights
The Court referred to Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), where Justice B.V. Nagarathna clarified that fundamental rights primarily regulate relations between the State and citizens, not between private individuals. Allowing fundamental rights to apply horizontally would undermine the constitutional framework of Article 12.
Vertical vs. Horizontal Application
- Vertical Application: Fundamental rights apply only against the State. This is India’s current position.
- Horizontal Application: Rights apply against both the State and individuals. India follows this only in limited cases (e.g., habeas corpus).
Balancing Privacy and Fair Trial
In Deepti Kapoor vs. Kunal Jhulka (2023), the Court emphasized that no fundamental right is absolute. When privacy and fair trial clash, the Right to Fair Trial prevails because it affects public justice. However, the Right to Privacy remains protected where it does not obstruct justice.
The Court stressed a teleological analysis: if a privacy breach serves a greater purpose of justice and fairness, it may be justified. But if the harm outweighs the benefit, the right must be preserved.
Conclusion
This Supreme Court ruling marks a landmark moment in balancing fundamental rights. It reinforced that while privacy is deeply personal, a fair trial has wider public implications. The judgment highlights India’s flexible approach—rights are applied vertically between citizens and the State, while common law governs private disputes horizontally. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed that no fundamental right is absolute, and justice for society remains the guiding principle.
