The Indian Army Major who filed a request to get CCTV video of a hotel because he believed his wife was having an affair with another Major and was there with him was denied by a Delhi court. “The right to privacy and to be left alone in a hotel would extend to the common areas as against a third party who was not present and has no other legally justifiable entitlement to seek the data of the guest,” noted Patiala House Courts civil judge Vaibhav Pratap Singh, who upheld the wife’s and her alleged lover’s right to privacy. The booking information would be no different.
The court added that the Supreme Court Joseph Shine v. Union of India has correctly rejected the idea of “stealing” the affection of a wife by another man, as if a woman is not in control of whom she loves. The court said, “The dated idea of a man stealing away the wife of another man, without ascribing any role or responsibility to the woman, is to be rejected. It takes agency away from women and dehumanises them,”.
The Court referenced Graham Greene’s novel “The End of the Affair” to illustrate that the Indian Parliament endorsed this jurisprudence by abolishing the colonial penal law and enacting the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which omitted the offence of adultery. This omission indicates that contemporary India rejects gender condescension and patriarchal concepts.
The husband’s complaint, which sought a mandatory injunction against the hotel and a directive to provide booking records and CCTV video of the common areas, was denied by the court. He was embroiled in a conjugal dispute and divorce with his wife, who went to the hotel with her alleged paramour. According to the judgement, hotels are expected to maintain the privacy of their data, including CCTV video and reservation information, and typically owe a duty of secrecy to their patrons.
The Court said that the wife and her purported paramour were pivotal to the husband’s allegations, however they were not included in the lawsuit, aising serious concerns about their right to be heard before any disclosures were made. The court observed “…it is highly questionable whether the hotel can be compelled to release this information without joining these individuals as necessary or at least proper parties to the suit,”.
Additionally, the judge said that courts are not intended to serve as investigative bodies for private conflicts or to gather evidence for internal processes, particularly where there is no obvious legal claim to the material. The Court emphasised that the Army Act of 1950 and the existing Rules provide procedures for processing complaints and presenting evidence, and the spouse must take the necessary steps to summon witnesses. Accordingly, the Court cannot be utilised to circumvent or boost these internal mechanisms, it concluded.