The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether the personal information of an individual such as call data records and hotel bills can be seized on the orders of the court in connection with allegations of adultery in matrimonial relationships.

A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar on Thursday issued notice to a woman named Manju Arora who had accused her estranged husband and petitioner Sachin Arora of indulging in an adulterous relationship with another woman.

Appearing for the husband, advocate Preeti Singh told the bench that the directions passed by a family court for the seizure of personal data records were a serious infringement of an individual’s fundamental right to privacy as laid down by a nine-judge bench in the Justice (retired) K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar case).

According to Singh, such seizure cannot be ordered unless it was essential in the interest of the state or the nation.

The appeal was filed by the husband after Delhi High Court on May 10 dismissed his petition against the family court’s order.

The family court in Delhi had on July 4, 2022 and December 14, 2022, directed Fairmont Hotel, Jaipur to preserve the documents relating to reservation details, payment details and ID proofs of the occupant(s) of room number 219 (allegedly occupied by the husband and another woman) between April 29, 2022 and May 1, 2022 and send the same to the court in a sealed cover.

The court had further directed the mobile companies concerned to preserve and send the call detail records of the husband and the other woman to the family court in a sealed cover during the period ranging from June 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022.

The aggrieved husband referred to the nine-judge bench’s decision in the Justice Puttaswamy case wherein it was held that “... an invasion of privacy by the State must be justified on the basis of a law that is reasonable and valid. Such an invasion must meet a three-fold requirement…

n Legality, which postulates the existence of law;

n Need, defined in terms of a legitimate State interest, and

n Proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the object and the means adopted.”

According to the husband, the high court, despite holding that adultery is not a public offence where the community as a whole is a victim, had erroneously upheld the decision of the family court to conduct a roving inquiry and thereby infringed the petitioner’s fundamental right to privacy.

“The Hon’ble High Court has further failed to consider the catastrophic consequences that may arise if such roving and fishing enquiries are allowed to be conducted in matrimonial matters,” the appellant said.

“That in this era when we are recognising gender equality, personal choice, LGBT rights, etc., it cannot be said that the presence of a man with a woman at a public place like park or restaurant, on the face of it, shows an adulterous relationship between them...”