Right To Fair Trial Prevails Over Privacy: MP High Court Says Illegally Collected WhatsApp Chats Admissible In Matrimonial Disputes

The Single Bench of Justice Ashish Shroti upholding a Family Court's order permitting a husband to produce WhatsApp chats of his wife to substantiate allegations of adultery, ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial when the two are in conflict, particularly in family law matters where Section 14 specifically relaxes the strict rules of evidence.

Background

The case arose from a petition filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that allowed her husband to rely on WhatsApp conversations she had with a third person. The husband claimed that he had installed an application on his wife’s mobile phone which automatically forwarded her chats to his device. He sought to rely on these chats to establish that the wife was involved in an extramarital affair.

Opposing this, the wife contended that the chats were obtained without her knowledge or consent, amounting to a gross invasion of her right to privacy. Her counsel argued that such evidence, being illegally collected, was inadmissible and the Family Court erred in admitting it.

Court’s Reasoning

The Single Judge, after examining the matter, upheld the Family Court's decision. Referring to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, he held that the provision is designed to relax the rigid technicalities of the Indian Evidence Act in family law proceedings.

Under Section 14, a Family Court may receive any evidence that, in its opinion, would assist in effectively resolving the dispute, regardless of how it was obtained or whether it would be otherwise admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

Quoting from his own order, the judge stated, “Since no fundamental right under our Constitution is absolute, in the event of conflict between two fundamental rights, as in this case, a contest between the right to privacy and the right to fair trial—both of which arise under Article 21—the right to privacy may have to yield to the right to fair trial.”

The Bench emphasized that Family Courts, by legislative design, are not bound by strict rules of evidence, and the guiding factor for admitting evidence must be its relevance and its potential to assist the court in resolving the matrimonial dispute.

On Right to Privacy

While acknowledging the wife’s right to privacy, the Court held that such a right is not absolute. Relying on the landmark judgments of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003), the Court reiterated that privacy can be lawfully curtailed where competing interests, such as fair trial and public justice, are at stake.

It added, “Section 14 of Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act are some such statutory provisions which permit invasion into the right to privacy.”

The Court warned, however, that merely admitting such evidence does not equate to proving the fact in issue. It stressed that illegally collected evidence must be treated with caution and scrutiny to rule out the possibility of fabrication or tampering.

Key Takeaways

The Single Judge outlined the following principles flowing from the decision:

1. Evidence is admissible if relevant, irrespective of how it is obtained.

2. Admissibility is not proof—the evidence must still be evaluated on merits.

3. The test of relevance safeguards the right to fair trial by allowing litigants to present material supporting their case.

4. The person who collects evidence illegally may still face civil or criminal consequences, even if the evidence is admitted.

5. Courts must treat such evidence with caution and circumspection.

The Court also referred to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits disclosure of communications made between spouses during marriage when they are parties to a legal proceeding involving one another, further supporting the admissibility of the chats.

Conclusion

By upholding the Family Court's order, the High Court affirmed that in family law disputes, especially those involving allegations of adultery, the right to a fair trial and the relevance of evidence takes precedence over procedural concerns regarding how such evidence was procured.