Meenakshi Shukla
I. Introduction
In Vibhor Garg v. Neha, the Supreme Court of India addressed a significant question of law: whether secretly recorded conversations between spouses can be admitted in divorce proceedings, notwithstanding privacy concerns? Delivered by a Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, this judgment clarifies the scope of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and its interplay with constitutional privacy rights, emphasising the primacy of a fair trial over an absolutist interpretation of privacy.
This decision is particularly notable for its technologically responsive approach, acknowledging how electronic evidence has transformed matrimonial litigation. The Court observed:
“Once a marriage reaches the stage of secret recordings, the relationship is already fractured; the admission of such evidence does not cause damage but facilitates adjudication based on truth.
II. Factual Background
The appellant-husband, Vibhor Garg, and the respondent-wife, Neha, were married on 20 February 2009 and had a daughter in 2011. Marital discord led Garg to file a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in 2017, later amended in 2018.
During the evidence stage, Garg sought to file a supplementary affidavit with memory cards, a CD, and transcripts of telephonic conversations recorded during 2010–2016. The Family Court admitted the material, finding it relevant under Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
However, on revision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside this order, holding that the recordings violated the wife’s constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 and could not form the basis of a divorce decree. Aggrieved, Garg appealed to the Supreme Court, raising pivotal questions on marital privilege, privacy, and admissibility of electronic records.
For further clarity in matrimonial disputes, click here to register and access the masterclass on Matrimonial Law and Practice.
III. Issues Before the Court
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Family Court’s order allowing the husband to produce secretly recorded conversations as evidence.
- Whether such recordings violate Section 122 of the Evidence Act or infringe the right to privacy.
- Whether evidence obtained without consent or through surveillance is admissible in matrimonial disputes.
IV. The Court’s Analysis
1. Section 122 – Scope and Exceptions
Section 122 provides:
“No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.”
The Bench emphasised two distinct aspects:
- A spouse cannot be compelled to disclose marital communications.
- Even voluntary disclosure is barred without the consent of the communicator.
However, the explicit exception “suits between married persons” applied squarely. The Court clarified that “The very object of Section 122 is not to cloak privacy in perpetuity but to protect the institution of marriage. In matrimonial disputes, disclosure of communications serves the ends of justice.”
2. Illegality and Admissibility of Evidence
Relying on established jurisprudence in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, AIR 1974 SC 348, the Court reiterated that illegality in obtaining evidence does not automatically make it inadmissible:
“Courts have consistently held that relevance is the touchstone of admissibility; procedural lapses in obtaining evidence cannot override substantive justice.”
Thus, recordings obtained without consent can be admitted if their authenticity and relevance are established under Section 65B.
3.Privacy Concerns and Fair Trial Rights
The Court distinguished between constitutional privacy as recognised in Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 and statutory marital privilege:
“Section 122 does not codify a fundamental right to privacy but a privilege aimed at preserving marital intimacy… It cannot be read as granting a horizontal privacy right between spouses.”
The Bench emphasised that in matrimonial disputes, the right to a fair trial under Article 21 prevails over privacy concerns. The Court stated:
“The privilege must yield to truth-seeking when parties approach a court of law. The balance tilts towards adjudicatory fairness rather than absolute confidentiality.”
4. Embracing Digital Evidence
The judgment underscores Parliament’s intent in introducing Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which prescribes authentication standards for electronic evidence. The Court observed:
“The law of evidence is not meant to create barriers to justice but to assist the court in ascertaining the truth… In the digital age, technology provides reliable, contemporaneous proof of events, and courts must harness this potential.”
The recordings, once certified under Section 65B, were deemed admissible.
V. Court’s Judgment
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Family Court’s order, directing it to consider the recordings, CD, and transcripts in accordance with the law.
- It held that Section 122’s exception expressly permits disclosure of marital communications in suits between spouses.
- The judgment clarified that privacy is not an absolute bar to the admissibility of evidence in matrimonial proceedings.
VI. Significance of the Ruling
- The Court reframed Section 122’s purpose, emphasising protection of marriage rather than individual privacy.
- By treating privacy as contextual, not absolute, it balanced personal dignity with judicial truth-finding.
- The ruling affirms Section 65B as a robust procedural safeguard for electronic records.
- The decision empowers trial courts to rely on technological evidence in sensitive disputes involving domestic violence or marital discord.
- The Court implicitly signals the need for a statutory framework regulating surveillance in intimate relationships to prevent misuse.
VII. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vibhor Garg v. Neha is a turning point in how Courts navigate the tension between marital trust and personal privacy. By allowing secretly recorded conversations as evidence, the Court made it clear that Section 122 is meant to protect the sanctity of marriage, not to shield wrongdoing. It also reaffirmed that a fair trial must take precedence over rigid privacy claims. Yet, the judgment gently reminds us of the risks of turning private spaces into zones of surveillance, calling for clearer laws on privacy and consent within relationships. This ruling shows that while the law must evolve with technology, justice must always be delivered with empathy, fairness, and respect for human dignity.
Case Name: Vibhor Garg v. Neha
Petition Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21195/2021
Bench: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Click here to access the order
Join our 1-week Online Masterclass with Ms. Aarzu Khattar, Advocate & Mediator, practising before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. Gain practical, courtroom-ready skills you can use from Day One in practice.
Click here to register and access the Masterclass on Matrimonial Law and Practice
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com