In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court recently considered a Special Leave Petition challenging a court direction allowing a Petitioner to contest his spouse's request for obtaining and preserving call detail records and details of a hotel stay. The case sheds light on the delicate issue of privacy violations in divorce proceedings involving allegations of adultery. This article examines the arguments presented before the court and explores the balance between individual privacy rights and claims of marital infidelity.
The Special Leave Petition was filed by a concerned spouse, challenging a Family Court's decision to direct a hotel in Jaipur to disclose information regarding a specific booking, including the identification of occupants on a particular date. Additionally, the Family Court ordered the mobile service provider to submit the Petitioner's call detail records. These directives were issued in response to the Petitioner's spouse, who alleged adultery and claimed that the Petitioner engaged in an extramarital relationship with an individual they met at the Jaipur hotel. The Petitioner argued that the Family Court's decision violated their fundamental right to privacy and set a concerning precedent.
At the heart of this case lies the question of whether the fundamental right to privacy of a spouse can be breached in cases of alleged adultery during divorce proceedings. This is where the Supreme Court found it crucial to strike a meaningful balance between the privacy protection of an individual and the admission of evidence in a case of adultery. The Petitioner argued that the matter at hand involved civil issues related to allegations of a private nature. They contended that the court order not only posed a risk to their reputation but also allowed questions to be raised about the character and integrity of their acquaintance. The Petitioner asserted that disproportionate weight was given to a specific observation made in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India [(2018) SCC OnLine SC 1676], where it was concluded that consensual sexual relationships outside of marriage by married individuals did not warrant protection under Article 21. They referred to an observation made by Justice Indu Malhotra in the same case, emphasising the importance of adopting a minimalist approach in criminalising offences and respecting individuals' autonomy in making personal choices.
The Petitioner maintained that while adultery is a moral wrong that impacts the spouse and family, it does not constitute a public wrong affecting society as a whole. Despite this, the High Court upheld the Family Court's decision to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the Petitioner's life. The Petitioner argued that such an approach was invasive and contradicted the principles established in the landmark case of Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1], which recognised the significance of individual privacy.
The case involving allegations of adultery and privacy concerns has sparked a significant legal debate. The Supreme Court's examination of the matter provides an opportunity to clarify the extent to which the right to privacy can be restricted in such cases. The outcome of this case will likely shape future judgments and legal interpretations regarding privacy rights in the context of allegations of adultery during divorce proceedings. The case is scheduled to be listed on August 7, 2023.
Case Title - Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11643/2023
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to your situation.
Comentários