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

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a