Skip to main content

Direction issued to maintain confidentiality of ‘sensitive documents’

Showing concern over a very serious issue of infringement of right to privacy in cases where the lawyers produce very personal documents of the parties as an evidence before the Court, a division bench of S. Muralidhar and I.S. Mehta JJ., issued directions to the lower courts with respect to the steps which should be taken into care while producing documents before the court which is of a ‘sensitive nature’.

In the instant case, the appellant is seeking the permanent custody of his minor children, and for that he produced the ‘personal diary’ maintained by one of his child before the Court to show that he desires to stay with his father even after his vacations are over. The Court stated that contents of the document reflect inter alia the very private and personal feelings and opinions of a young child about his parents, sibling, friends and relatives, and it is not something which should be casually placed in the public domain to violate the right of privacy of the author of the diary as well as person named in the diary thereto. The Court noted that “where litigants themselves do not realize the implications for the right to privacy and dignity of the parties involved in litigation, the Court expects the lawyers handling the litigation to display that understanding of the legal position”.

The Court issued the following directions to maintain the confidentiality of ‘sensitive documents’:

where a party in a case seeks to rely upon a document (any writing, private letters, notings, photographs, and documents in electronic form including video clips, text messages, chat details, emails, printed copies thereof, CCTV footage etc.) which is of a sensitive nature and contain details of personal or private nature, then the party or lawyer of such party shall have to firstly seek leave of the court to produce such document in a sealed cover, and till the leave is not granted, the contents of the said document shall not be extracted in the pleadings or enclosed with the petition.
where the party/ Family Court on its own, comes upon a document on record in the case which is prima facie of a sensitive nature, which when disclosed is likely to affect the right to privacy or cause embarrassment, the court will pass appropriate orders to preserve such document in a sealed cover, de-seal it for being produced during court proceedings and re-seal it again after the purpose for which they are directed to be produced is over
Family Court can also pass necessary directions regarding the making of copies, use, preservation and dissemination of such documents with a view to maintain its confidentiality.
Family Court should as far as possible and practicable invoke the power under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act 1984 and hold the proceedings in camera.
Lastly, the Court stated that the parties should avoid bringing children to the Family Court on a routine basis, as it would affect healthy development of children. [X v. Z, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10045 , decided on 11.06.2015]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/06/16/direction-issued-to-maintain-confidentiality-of-sensitive-documents.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf