The Supreme Court is set to examine the issue of whether directions demanding details of hotel stays and call records to prove allegations of adultery violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. This comes in response to an appeal filed against a Delhi High Court ruling, which held that such procedures do not infringe upon the right to privacy.

The appeal was heard by a Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and PV Sanjay Kumar, who granted the respondent time to file a reply. The case has been scheduled for a hearing on August 7.

The Delhi High Court, in its order passed in May this year, had opined that seeking information regarding hotel room bookings and call detail records (CDRs) in adultery cases does not amount to a violation of the right to privacy. Justice Rekha Palli of the High Court stated that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public.

The High Court had upheld a family court's decision to allow a woman's application to summon the records of a hotel room where her husband allegedly stayed with another woman. Additionally, the court called for the CDR of two phone numbers belonging to the husband.

However, the husband challenged this ruling, arguing that the High Court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's judgment decriminalizing adultery. He contended that the High Court's reasoning gave excessive powers of evidence collection to the family court.

The appellant further contended that in a time when gender equality, personal choice, and LGBT rights are being recognized, the presence of a man and a woman in a public place, such as a park or a restaurant, should not be automatically construed as an adulterous relationship. He emphasized that such an interpretation would be regressive.

The divorce petition filed by the wife, citing cruelty and adultery, initiated the case. She claimed that her husband had stayed at a Jaipur hotel with another woman and her daughter. According to her, the CDR and hotel records were crucial evidence to establish adultery.

The husband argued that the trial court's directions infringed not only his but also his friend's right to privacy. He expressed concerns that compliance with the directions would tarnish the reputation and character of the woman he coincidentally met at the hotel and cast doubt on the legitimacy and paternity of her minor child.

The Delhi High Court reasoned that the information sought by the wife was relevant for proving the charge of adultery. It dismissed the argument that the directions constituted a roving and fishing inquiry. Justice Palli emphasized that when a wife seeks the court's assistance to obtain evidence that substantiates allegations of adultery against her husband, the court must intervene.

The Supreme Court's examination of this matter will likely have far-reaching implications on the delicate balance between the right to privacy and the evidentiary requirements in adultery cases. It will be eagerly watched to see how the apex court decides on this contentious issue.