Discovery of truth outweighs privacy when evidence at risk: HC in matrimonial case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the “discovery of truth” in a criminal trial is of far greater importance than the absolute preservation of privacy when crucial evidence is at risk of being lost. The assertion came as Justice Alok Jain directed the preservation of mobile call detail and tower location data in a matrimonial case.

Justice Jain asserted that the apex court had repeatedly held that the discovery of truth was pivotal in every criminal trial. Any evidence having the potential to unfurl the truth was an importance piece of evidence.

“At the same time, the privacy of an individual is also heavily weighed, but when compared to the fundamental right of a citizen as to whether to preserve the privacy of an individual will lead to inability of discovery of truth, in my opinion the fundamental right for discovery of truth would be of much more importance. Article 21 of the Constitution lays down the principle of natural justice and the denial of access to evidence which would be lost if not preserved within time will lead to miscarriage of justice,” Justice Jain asserted.

The Bench observed that the service providers were obligated to preserve mobile records only for two years under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India rules. The record will “perish and be lost forever” by the time the defence evidence commenced.

Setting aside the lower court’s April 24 order, Justice Jain directed that the mobile data of the wife and her parents be preserved separately. The court also permitted the preservation of data of “respectable members of the society, who allegedly participated in a panchayat meeting to resolve the matter between the parties”.

The Bench observed that the marriage was solemnised on September 4, 2016. But the wife left her matrimonial home on August 8, 2023. After about 10 months, a complaint was lodged, levelling serious allegations leading to registration of an FIR on October 7, 2024. The petitioner obtained bail before seeking preservation of mobile location records from August 2023 to July 2024.

The petitioner among other things alleged that two witnesses were “planted” as the complainant’s case was weak. He never met these persons and the same could easily be verified by the IO through the mobile record.

Justice Jain directed that the preserved data be verified by the magistrate and stored in a sealed cover, along with the certificate required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, “without disclosing it to either the accused or the complainant”.

Justice Jain further clarified that mere preservation would not give right to the accused or cause prejudice to the complainant. If at the trial stage either side sought disclosure or production of the CDRs, they would have to establish necessity, desirability and relevance. Such applications would be considered “on its own merits without being impressed by the present order”.

Key takeaways

The ruling makes it clear that discovery of truth in a criminal trial takes precedence over strict privacy when crucial evidence is at risk of being lost. Justice Alok Jain linked the preservation of mobile records to Article 21’s guarantee of natural justice, while stressing that telecom companies retain such data only for two years. At the same time, the order clarified that sealing and certifying the records is a neutral step — it neither benefits the accused nor prejudices against the complainant — and any use of the data at trial will be subject to strict tests of necessity, desirability and relevance.