Late-night calls alone cannot question woman's character, says Delhi court
A Delhi court has said that a woman speaking to a man over the phone late at night cannot, by itself, be a reason to
A Delhi court has said that a woman speaking to a man over the phone late at night cannot, by itself, be a reason to question her character or justify seeking her call detail records. The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal by a man in a pending domestic violence case. The man had challenged a trial court order refusing his request to preserve the call detail records of his wife and another person. Additional Sessions Judge Shunali Gupta upheld that order, saying any request for such records must be backed by specific and reasonable grounds.
Read Full Story In an order dated June 2, the court said, "To my mind, talking to any person even at odd hours of the day cannot by itself put a question mark on the character of the woman until and unless it has been alleged that the woman has some illegal, adulterous etc relationship with a said man." The husband had argued that the records needed to be preserved because his wife was allegedly in regular telephonic contact with certain persons during late night hours and the records might otherwise be erased by the service provider over time.
The sessions court, however, noted that neither the application before the trial court nor the appeal gave any concrete reason for preserving the records. While observing that the right to privacy is not absolute and can give way to the right to a fair trial in appropriate cases, the court said any invasion of privacy must be reasonably justified. "The Indian society no longer remains a primitive society wherein a woman talking with a man is considered to be a taboo," the judge said. The court added, "Women are working in every field, multinational companies etc and have male colleagues.
Just because a woman is found talking on the phone at night... the same cannot, by that very fact, become a ground seeking preservation of CDR of her mobile number." Holding that the plea lacked sufficient grounds and that privacy cannot be breached without proper justification, the court said the trial court had rightly rejected the request and dismissed the appeal. Ends
The BriefWire