The Madras High Court has held that WhatsApp chats, screenshots, and other private communications allegedly showing a parent’s drug use, procurement of narcotic substances, or association with persons involved in such activities may be considered in child custody and guardianship proceedings, as such evidence directly relates to determining the parent’s fitness and the welfare of the child.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed that while privacy is an important constitutional right, it cannot automatically prevent the Court from considering evidence that has a direct bearing on a child’s safety and welfare.
Legal Issue
The principal issue before the Court was whether private communications, including WhatsApp chats and screenshots allegedly obtained from a parent’s mobile phone, could be admitted as evidence in guardianship proceedings despite objections based on the right to privacy.
Background
The dispute arose from a guardianship petition filed by the father seeking permanent custody of the minor child. Opposing the plea, the mother alleged that the father was unfit to have custody due to his drug and alcohol use.
The mother claimed that in 2020, while the father was asleep, she accessed his mobile phone and photographed certain messages using her own phone. According to her, the material included conversations relating to the purchase of drugs, searches concerning narcotic substances, and messages indicating an alleged relationship with another woman.
The father denied the allegations and disputed the source, authenticity, authorship, and contents of the materials.
When the mother attempted to produce these documents before the Master Court, they were rejected on the ground that they involved the privacy rights of the father and third parties. She thereafter approached the High Court seeking permission to place the documents on record.
Court’s Decision
The High Court held that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in guardianship proceedings and that evidence having a real and direct bearing on a parent’s fitness cannot be excluded merely because it originated from private communications.
The Court clarified that the case was not simply a conflict between one parent’s privacy and the other’s desire to produce evidence. Rather, it involved balancing the constitutional right to privacy with the child’s safety and welfare, which are matters of public concern.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that not every private communication becomes relevant merely because custody is in dispute. Only material that has a rational connection with the child’s welfare should be admitted, and courts must not permit evidence intended solely to embarrass a party or damage their reputation.
To safeguard privacy, the Court directed that the documents would be used only for the guardianship proceedings, with appropriate measures to maintain confidentiality, protect third-party information, and prevent unnecessary publication. The Court further held that the mother must establish the authenticity of the materials and that the father would have the opportunity to cross-examine her and raise all legal objections during the trial.
Case: M v. B
