LESSONS FROM MAHILA POLICE RECRUITS' PROTEST IN GORAKHPUR, UP

The protest by nearly 600 women recruits of UP Police at the PAC, Police Training Centre, Gorakhpur, has raised pertinent questions about the state of training infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh. The young recruits, from diverse backgrounds, including some disadvantaged ones, joined the training with lofty ideals of donning the uniform to take on crime and criminals in the state. Unfortunately, they had such an unpalatable first experience that they had to take the extreme step of collective protest, something unheard of in uniformed services, particularly in a training institution. The concerns of the recruits appear genuine, including cramped accommodation, a lack of sanitation, electricity, water, and hygienic food, as well as the presence of CCTV cameras in the washroom areas. The women recruits were also incensed by a departmental circular mandating pregnancy tests for all recruits, married or otherwise. In response to this crisis, the state government suspended a senior officer involved in the training, and several senior officers were rushed to quell the disquiet and address the concerns of the budding Police officers. Suspension is merely for public optics. It does not address the malaise and lack of preparedness to undertake the enormous task of training so many recruits simultaneously at mostly makeshift training centres. Not long ago, UP had prided itself on recruiting 60,000 young men and women to its Police force, the largest such recruitment on the planet by any country, let alone a state. The recruitment process was completed successfully, utilising technology, human resources, and the state’s infrastructure, without any allegations of unfair practices or corruption charges. The appointment letters to the recruits were distributed with much fanfare by none other than the Union Home Minister in the presence of the UP Chief Minister. The UP Police website claims to have over three lakh personnel. Such a massive recruitment drive, which accounts for nearly twenty per cent of the state’s Police force, also highlights the state’s inability to recruit regularly to contain vacancies within manageable limits without impacting day-to-day policing efficiency and service delivery. It is sad that in our country, recruitment is also used as an electoral tool to garner votes. Vacancies are deliberately allowed to mount before recruitment just before the elections to the state assemblies. Such practices undermine the cadre management, training, and promotion of men and women in uniform. Uttar Pradesh has also recruited a large number of constables in the past. Drawing from their experience, they converted their armed battalions into temporary training centres. All states and central paramilitary forces resort to this practice when faced with unusually large intakes. The commencement of training, however, is preceded by a thorough stocktaking of available infrastructure and logistics. This exercise becomes all the more relevant given that approximately 12,000 women recruits need to be housed and trained in a safe, secure, and enabling environment. It is not confirmed whether an audit of available accommodation, including toilets and bathrooms, kitchens, dining halls, classrooms, outdoor training fields, equipment, dummy weapons, qualified instructors, CCTNS labs, and support staff, was conducted, or what efforts were made to augment the facilities. I recall that when the Himachal Police was required to train a newly sanctioned Mahila India Reserve battalion, the Police headquarters did extensive consultations with several officers and trainers. In fact, a lady IPS officer was handpicked and posted at the chosen battalion headquarters to supervise their training. Women trainers, supervisory staff, and support staff were also identified and posted to the new location. Extra infrastructure was created to suit the requirements of the women trainees before the training began. Not even a single murmur of discontent was heard during their training. The department’s responsibility goes beyond physical training. It is also responsible for equipping Police personnel with the necessary professional and soft skills, resilience, empathy, courage, and wisdom to tackle the modern-day challenges of crime, criminals, and complainants. This comprehensive training is crucial for the effective functioning of the Police force. Good training is like laying a solid foundation for a 30 to 35 years of career in khaki. Police training academies for officers have transformed into centres of excellence in learning in the Police craft. However, the same cannot be said of the training facilities for the junior ranks. Their job profiles and training facilities remain archaic, embedded in the colonial past. There is an urgent need for the rejuvenation of their roles, accompanied by commensurate training inputs and infrastructure. The Gorakhpur protests highlight the state’s inadequacy in creating gender inclusive institutions.  This inadequacy may not be exclusive to Uttar Pradesh. Other states may report similar shortfalls. The decades-old run-down training infrastructure is still primarily suitable for the male incumbents. As the percentage of women in the Police regularly increases to meet the avowed target of 33%, the Police infrastructure must undergo a significant overhaul in the training and work ecosystems, ensuring a sense of security, dignity, inclusiveness, and respect. Aside from punitive measures, the state must urgently take the corrective and more meaningful step of building adequate infrastructure, logistics, and capacity. Even if it means suspending the training of women recruits for a few months, this action is crucial to prevent such incidents in the future. The urgency of these reforms cannot be overstated. The uproar among women recruits, while causing a minor setback to the image of the Uttar Pradesh Police, actually presents a significant opportunity. This is a chance for the force for systematic improvements by identifying and addressing gaps in infrastructure, capacity, supervision, and grievance redressal. It’s also an opportunity to review policies, such as the installation of CCTVs, and address the privacy concerns of women personnel joining the force. This opportunity for systemic improvements should be embraced with optimism and determination. Other states can also learn a great deal from the Gorakhpur incident and upgrade their infrastructure accordingly. The lessons from this incident are invaluable and should not be overlooked.   Over the last few years, the UP Police have earned a good name for themselves. They should build on this culture by taking the frustration and anger of their newest recruits constructively. This positive reputation should serve as a source of pride and motivation for the force to continue its good work. (The article appeared in the Tribune on 28.7.2025) https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/premium/gorakhpurs-women-recruits-expose-a-broken-system/

SECRETLY RECORDED CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSES AND THEIR ADMISSIBILITY IN LAW

In a divorce case, the Supreme Court has accepted conversations of a couple secretly recorded by the man to prove cruelty by his wife, raising concerns about domestic surveillance and abuse of privacy law.s

In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence.

Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha.  The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court.

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse.

Complete lack of trust

The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws.

The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: “We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.”

The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes.

The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21  of the Constitution.

Important form of evidence

Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years.

The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case.

The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case.

Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws.

The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also.

(https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/secretly-recorded-conversations-may-be-evidence-but-erode-spousal-trust/article69847449.ece)