R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCR 417 is locus classicus on determining admissibility of a tape-recorded conversation. When this Court decided Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147 and R.M. Malkani, devices like tape-recorders and microphones were carefully placed in a space wherein conversations could be secretly recorded and entire process was not as easy as clicking a button on a mobile phone. Even in those times, Courts have encouraged need for having better evidence for adjudication than to close doors of technology.

Snooping between partners is an effect and not a cause of marital disharmony. The issue for our consideration is, whether conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them could be permitted to be made admissible in evidence. Section 122 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects disclosure of all communications between persons married to one another made during marriage, except in litigation between themselves. The bar on disclosure of communication is lifted since present case is in a proceeding under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

­- Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Vibhor Garg v. Neha, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21195 of 2021].  

_____

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471 is a Two-Judge Bench decision of this Court. Court held, even if evidence is illegally obtained, it is admissible. Court referred to with approval its earlier decision in Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla, AIR 1971 SC 1295. Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi, (1974) 1 SCC 345 held, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.

– Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5915 of 2025] decided on 23.02.2026.