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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...