Telephonic conversation
Ganesh
(Querist) 23 December 2009
This query is : Resolved
Is telephonic conversation held as a valid evidence in criminal and civil cases
J.D.Sharma
(Expert) 23 December 2009
Though our legal system has been witness to a slew of telephone tapping cases, no clear trend has emerged so far. The issue resurfaced during the proceedings of the Parliament attack case but the High Court and the Supreme Court examined it from different standpoints.
The early common law position in relation to the admissibility of evidence highlighted the relevance of the evidence rather than how it was obtained "It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible".
The Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 was enacted to govern all aspects relating to the usage of telephones and the telegraph system in the Country. The definition of telegraph now includes telephone. Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 enables the Central Government or a State Govt. to intercept communications provided it is required in the interests of the security of the State and to prevent incitement to the commission of an offence.
In a the Court utilized the conversation to show that a "witness might be contradicted when he denies any question tending to impeach his impartiality" [Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act] and thus observed that the tape itself would become the primary and direct evidence of what has been said and recorded
In another high profile case, the highest court in the land ruled that wiretaps constituted a "serious invasion of an individual's privacy". The Supreme Court recognized the fact that the right of privacy is an integral part of the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the right is only available and enforceable against the state and not against action by private entities. A person talking on the telephone is exercising his or her right to freedom of speech and expression. Hence, telephone tapping would also infringe Art 19(1)(a) unless it came within the restrictions on this right set out in Art 19(2). However, Supreme Court, softened the harshness of the law by introducing guidelines that were to be followed by the government. The guidelines define who can tap phones and under what circumstances. Only the Union Home Secretary, or his counterpart in the states, can issue an order for a tap. The government is also required to show that the information sought cannot to be obtained through any other means.
aman kumar
(Expert) 23 December 2009
court takes as simply 2ndry evidence
bhupender sharma
(Expert) 23 December 2009
it is approved under the evidence act as provided undersection 65 A onwards of the Evidence Act.
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 23 December 2009
Yes, there is change in law.
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 23 December 2009
Yes telephonic conversation held as a valid evidence
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 December 2009
This topic has been discussed in this forum various times and it has clearly been opined by almost all experts that it is admissible under sections 65 A & 65 B of Evidence Act but no much reliance is put to such evidence as compared to other mode of evidence as it is secondary evidence.
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 26 December 2009
Yes.However it is very difficult to prove conents of said convertation.
Guest
(Expert) 01 January 2010
It's good piece of evidence iff the conversation is taped with the knowledge of the other party.
