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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...