Supreme Court's landmark ruling on Spousal Privilege
Core Ruling (July 2025)
Secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial disputes (divorce, cruelty, adultery cases), overriding traditional privacy protections under Section 122, Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872.
Legal Framework & Evolution
| Provision | Traditional View | SC’s New Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Section 122, IEA | Protected marital communications; barred disclosure without consent. | Not absolute; yields to truth-seeking in matrimonial disputes. |
| Admissibility | High Courts often rejected secret recordings (privacy concerns). | Permissible if relevant/verifiable – digital devices = "eavesdroppers" akin to third-party witnesses. |
| Precedent | Privilege upheld to preserve marital sanctity. | Relied on R.M. Malkani v. State (1973) – secretly recorded evidence admissible if authentic. |
Key Arguments in the Judgment
- Privacy vs. Fair Trial:
- Recognized privacy as fundamental right (Puttaswamy, 2017) but balanced against fair trial.
- "When spouses resort to snooping, marital trust is already broken."
- Technological Realism:
- Digital evidence (recordings, texts) is integral to modern litigation.
- Matrimonial Justice:
- Victims of marital cruelty need corroborative evidence to prove claims.
Critical Concerns Raised
| Issue | Implication |
|---|---|
| Gender Digital Divide | Women 39% less likely to own smartphones (2025 Mobile Gender Gap Report) → disadvantaged in evidence collection. |
| Surveillance Culture | Normalizes marital espionage; risks misuse for coercion. |
| Legislative Gap | No law regulates domestic surveillance → urgent need for parliamentary intervention. |