Data PrivacyMadras High Court on Privacy in Matrimonial Disputes: Insights Aligned with DPDPA, 2023

Overview: In CRP(MD)No.2362 of 2024, the Madras High Court addressed a key question: Can evidence obtained in breach of privacy, specifically call data records accessed by a husband without his wife’s consent, be admissible in matrimonial proceedings?

The petitioner wife argued that this unauthorized access violated her fundamental right to privacy. The court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through privacy violations and the necessity of certification for electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The underline ratio which was reiterated and propounded in this can be summarised as below:

IMPORTANT FINDINGS & QUOTES

On Privacy as a Fundamental Right:

“Privacy as a fundamental right includes spousal privacy also and evidence obtained by invading this right is inadmissible.”

On Spousal Privacy:

“The wife may maintain a diary. She may jot down her thoughts and intimate feelings. She has every right to expect that her husband will not read its contents except with her consent. What applies to diary will apply to her mobile phone also.”

On Trust in Marriage:

“Trust forms the bedrock of matrimonial relationships. The spouses must have implicit and total faith and confidence in each other. Snooping on the other destroys the fabric of marital life.”

On Invasion of Privacy:

“There has been a clear invasion of the privacy right of the wife. It is obvious that the husband had stealthily obtained the information pertaining to the call history of his wife. He was not the owner of the mobile device or the registered user of the sim card.”

KEY HOLDINGS

1. Evidence obtained through breach of privacy rights is inadmissible in court
2. Section 14 of Family Courts Act cannot override fundamental right to privacy
3. Each spouse has right to privacy against the other
4. Surveillance or snooping by one spouse on another is deprecated

DIRECTIONS ISSUED

1. Call records obtained without wife’s consent were held inadmissible
2. Central Government directed to notify sufficient experts under Section 79A of IT Act in Tamil Nadu within 3 months

SIGNIFICANCE

This judgment sets an important precedent regarding:

• Privacy rights between spouses
• Admissibility of electronic evidence in matrimonial cases
• Balance between proving marital misconduct and protecting privacy rights.

Though, in this case, the Court has not dealt with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act,2023 (DPDPA) but this write up is an attempt to highlight as to how the findings are aligned with the DPDPA.

Key Judicial Observations and DPDPA Correlations

I further deal with this case where an attempt is being made to co-relate the fundamental principals of DPDPA only, as under:

1. Privacy as a Fundamental Right The court upheld the principle that privacy is a fundamental right, including within matrimonial relationships, referencing the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment. This aligns with the DPDPA’s central tenet of safeguarding individual privacy and autonomy, underscoring that unauthorized data access breaches personal privacy rights.
2. Consent and Data Processing The husband’s lack of consent to access the wife’s call data illustrates a breach of the DPDPA’s consent principle. Under DPDPA, all data processing requires explicit consent from the data principal, similar to the court’s emphasis on obtaining due authorization for electronic evidence.
3. Admissibility and Data Security The court found that without a proper Section 65B certification, the electronic record was inadmissible. The DPDPA’s security and accountability principles reflect similar rigor, mandating data fiduciaries to ensure integrity and security of personal data through lawful handling and certifications.
4. Purpose Limitation and Minimization The court rejected the use of private call data to establish grounds for marital disputes, which lacked a legitimate purpose. This mirrors DPDPA’s purpose limitation and data minimization principles, where data is to be processed only for authorized purposes and only the minimum necessary data should be accessed.
5. Role of Expert Certification Highlighting the need for qualified experts to certify electronic records, the court’s directive under Section 79A of the IT Act resonates with the DPDPA’s emphasis on certified and accountable data management processes, advocating for expertise in handling sensitive data.

Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment reinforces principles central to the DPDPA: individual privacy, consent, purpose limitation, and lawful access to data.

This case underscores the significance of respecting data protection standards even within personal relationships, setting a precedent aligned with India’s evolving data privacy landscape under DPDPA, 2023.

To discuss or for feedback, feel free to connect with dataprivacy@amlegals.com