One-Party Consent Call Recordings and the Privacy Paradox
Phone call recordings have grown its popularity in this new digital era, serving as both a tool for personal security and a means of gathering evidence in judicial procedures. One of the most important legal challenges involving phone recordings is the concept of one-party consent, which allows one participant to record a call without the other's knowledge or approval. While this method can be useful in providing evidence, particularly in cases of fraud, abuse, or disputes, it also presents significant privacy issues.
In courts all across the world, including India, the evidential value of one-party consent recordings is becoming more and more significant. However, this practice remains debatable, particularly in terms of privacy. The dilemma arises: should the right to privacy be compromised in the pursuit of justice, or is it possible to balance these competing interests?
Legal Framework Governing Call Recordings in India
The legal framework governing audio recordings in India is primarily shaped by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Telegraph Act provides the legal basis for interception and monitoring of communications, while the Evidence Act governs the admissibility of various forms of evidence, including phone call recordings. Under the Telegraph Act, the interception of communications is generally prohibited unless authorized by the government for specific reasons, such as national security or public safety.1
One-party consent refers to a situation where a conversation is recorded by one of the participants without informing or obtaining the consent of the other party. In India, one-party consent recordings have been allowed in certain situations by the courts, especially in criminal investigations and matrimonial disputes, recognizing their potential value as evidence.
For instance, in S. Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab (1963)2, the court held that illegally obtained evidence is not automatically inadmissible. The evidence obtained through a recorded conversation can be admitted as long as its authenticity and relevance are verified, despite potential concerns about privacy violations. This sets a precedent for allowing audio recordings in cases where the recording is relevant to proving the offense. Similarly, R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1972) the Court observed that evidence does not become inadmissible solely because it was obtained unlawfully. If the evidence is relevant and its authenticity can be verified, it may still be considered by the court. The method of acquisition may affect the weight given to the evidence, but is not, by itself, a valid reason for rejecting it, particularly in civil matters.3
Judicial View on the Admissibility of One-Party Consent Recordings
Courts assess the admissibility of one-party consent recordings by examining their relevance to the case and the authenticity of the content. They have consistently maintained that any evidence, including call recordings, may be admitted if it bears directly on the issues in question. In the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014),4 the Supreme Court clarified that electronic records which are not primary in nature are admissible in court only if they comply with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires a certificate of authenticity for such records.
Moreover, in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017),5 the Supreme Court ruled that the admissibility of relevant and authentic electronic records, must adhere to the procedures established by law, including safeguards against tampering.
Privacy vs. Admissibility: Diverging Judicial Opinions
While one-party consent recordings can provide significant evidence, they also present major privacy concerns. The right to privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which also ensures the right to life and personal liberty. However, this right is not absolute and may be overturned in some circumstances, such as where the public interest outweighs individual privacy rights.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arunima @ Abha Mehta,6statedthat recordings generated without consentviolate the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It stated that such recordings could not be utilised as an instrument for creating evidence, nor could they be admitted as evidence. However, the Puttaswamy case (2017)7 further clarified that the right to privacy is fundamental, but it is not an absolute right. In line with this understanding, the Kerala High Court in Radeena D.N. & Ors. v. Rahul K. & Ors8. held that while privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is subject to procedure established by law. The Court observed that a judicial directive issued for the purpose of evidence collection, such as summoning call records and tower location data, constitutes a procedure established by law and does not amount to a violation of privacy.
The admissibility of audio recordings in different circumstances has been the subject of conflicting judicial decisions in India, especially where such recordings are produced without the knowledge or consent of one or more parties. Different High Courts have construed the right to privacy differently depending on the nature of the recording and the environment in which it was made. In Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanender Rayala (2007),9 the Andhra Pradesh High court talked about instance where one-party consent is permissible, a person is allowed to record their own conversations without needing the other party's knowledge or consent. However, the case particularly dealt with an instance where there is no consent from either party. Recording a private conversation between one's spouse and a third party, such as a paramour, raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Such a situation cannot be justified under one-party consent laws, as it involves an unauthorized recording of a spouse's private conversation with others (third parties). A recording of this nature, especially when it involves personal matters like infidelity, is a clear intrusion into the privacy of the individual being recorded.
In contrast, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vibhor Garg vs. Neha refuted a similar line of reasoning. Here, a husband recorded a conversation with his wife (a one-party consent cause), claiming it was to prove cruelty in his divorce petition. Although the husband was a participant in the conversation, the court refused to admit the one-party recording, highlighting that it amounted to a breach of the wife's privacy. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that recording a wife's phone conversation without her knowledge constituted a clear violation of her privacy, and the high court accordingly overturned the Family Court's order admitting the recording as evidence.
As a result, whereas Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari allows one-party consent recordings when one party records a conversation in which they participate, Vibhor has a different perspective. In Vibhor, the court refused to allow the use of a one-party consent recording in which one spouse recorded a conversation between themselves and their spouse, holding that such a recording violates the spouse's privacy rights, despite the fact that they were a participant in the conversation.
The rising use of telephone records as evidence in court proceedings has created a heated discussion over privacy invasion. As more and more cases involve the use of telephone recordings, one cannot help but notice a significant shift in what was formerly deemed private communication. What was once a private conversation between two people is now routinely subject of public scrutiny in court. More trials now involve phone recordings as evidence. This trend reflects a major shift in how privacy is perceived in the courtroom. In Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka,10 a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court observed that the well-established rule under the law of evidence is that relevant evidence is admissible regardless of the manner in which it is obtained. The Court warned that deviating from this rule could have serious and far-reaching consequences, potentially undermining judicial proceedings. It further held that concerns regarding potential misuse, particularly in the context of privacy, should be addressed not at the stage of admitting evidence but during its evaluation and application at the adjudication stage, through judicial discretion. Therefore, conversations that were once believed to be confidential are now often treated as potential evidence in court.
Conclusion
With technology advancing and phone call recordings becoming more common in legal cases, it is essential to evaluate the legality of these actions, especially when one party secretly records a conversation. The legality of one-party recording without consent remains unsettled and context-dependent.
Currently, India lacks a specific statutory framework that addresses data protection or the clandestine recording of phone calls, leaving a significant legislative gap. While India recently enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, it primarily governs data processing by entities and does not directly address the legality or admissibility of secretly recorded private conversations by individuals. As a result, the laws that are applicable to situations like the secret recording of a phone conversation by a private individual are often ambiguous and insufficiently tested in judicial interpretation. The existing laws, such as the Indian Telegraph Act, primarily focus on interceptions by government authorities or law enforcement agencies. The Telegraph Act allows the state to intercept communication, but it does not specifically address the issue of private individuals recording calls without consent.
In light of this legal void, the admissibility of a private recording made without the knowledge of the other party becomes a more complicated issue. Moreover, the evidentiary weight of such recordings is highly debated. While some courts accept them as valid evidence, others scrutinize the methods by which they were obtained and question their authenticity and fairness. Unlike government-sanctioned surveillance or wiretapping, where statutory safeguards are explicitly laid out, the personal recording of a conversation by one party has not been adequately regulated. This has led to inconsistencies in how such recordings are treated in court. To address this legal grey area, legislative clarity or judicial standard-setting is essential to reconcile the competing interests of evidentiary utility and the right to privacy.
Footnotes
1 The Telegraph Act 1885, S. 5.
2 AIR1964 SC 72.
3 AIR 1973 SC 157.
4 [2014] 10 SCC 473.
5 [2018] 2 SCC 801.
6 AIR 2016 MP 112.
7 [2017] 10 SCC 1.
8 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 20535.
9 AIR 2008 AP 98.
10 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672
By
Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate
Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court
Email id: vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com
Mobile No.: +91 9810081079
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vpdalmia/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vpdalmia
X (Twitter): @vpdalmia
© 2025, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy
Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
