LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sonam   20 June 2024

Call recording admissible in court?

I have my uncle and grandfather's call recording in which my grandfather wanted to give share to my father as well like he was giving to other members but my uncle manipulated him and took my father's share as well. My question is that the call recording I have would it be admissible in court of law.


 5 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     20 June 2024

This cannot be considered as an evidence to claim a share in the property as a right. The court will not entertain such evidences unless and until this is corroborated with any other kind of evidence, then also you may have to adhere to the provisions of section 65b of Indian evidence act  for producing this evidence as secondary evidence

P. Venu (Advocate)     20 June 2024

Call records are admissble in Court. However, the posting the aspects posted are of no probative value.

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate )     21 June 2024

Whether the property is self-acquired or ancestral in the hands of your grandfather ?

What is the preferred mode of transfer of property to your father and his siblings by your grandfather ?

Call recording can not be used, anyways.

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (advocate)     21 June 2024

Although call recording is  admissible in evidence but not a reliable as it can be tempered easily .Merely such recording is not sufficient  to prove any fact or content until and unless icorroborated by other evidence.

Parth Chawla (Lawyer)     21 June 2024


I have read your query and would like to answer it. As for your concern, to claim property if there is any coercion or fraud or if the property was acquired by your uncle without the will of your grandfather, you may file a case, but if your grandfather made the transferred the property by his will then in that case no action can be taken. As for your question of whether call recordings are admissible in court or not I would like you to know that, call recordings in India have become a crucial form of evidence in the legal proceedings. The admissibility of call recordings has been a matter of debate in the Indian Courts.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 defines electronic record of sound stored, received or sent in electronic form. Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in provides conditions for the admissibility of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. The recording must have been made in the ordinary course of business and the person who is recording must be authorised to do so, the documented speech must be with explicit permission of at least one of the speakers. Section 85B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the law regarding alteration of recorded evidence.


Reference case Laws:

 S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964

In this case the Supreme Court accepted a telephonic recording of a conversation between two parties after examining the evidentiary value. The Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was brought in the year 2000, hence the evidence submitted was accepted only because it helped to resolve the case.

R.M. Malkani v. the State of Maharashtra 1973

In this case the High Court held that the telephone call put by Dr. Motwani to the appellant was tapped by the Police officers, and there was a violation of section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Later it was held by that the right to privacy in the Indian Constitution protects only innocent citizens and not those who try to vindicate the police because they are guilty of immoral crimes. The court held the recordings as admissible despite the violation of the telegraph.


In the case of Capt. Prithvi Pal Singh v. Sukh Dev Singh 1996 the Supreme Court established the admissibility of electronically recorded conversations as evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided that the recording is relevant, the voices are identifiable, and its accuracy is proven. Although this did not address the issue of consent for recording, which was later clarified in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) the court held that recordings made without the consent of at least one party involved might not be admissible, except in situations of serious crimes.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register