In India, recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties involved is generally not admissible as evidence in court and can be a violation of privacy. While recording one's own conversations is typically legal, recording others without their knowledge or consent can infringe upon their right to privacy, especially if the conversation contains sensitive information.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Privacy Rights:
India recognizes the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Admissibility in Court:
While electronic evidence is generally admissible, courts may scrutinize the legality and ethics of obtaining such evidence.
Consent is Crucial:
Indian law emphasizes the importance of consent in determining the legality of recording conversations.
Violation of Privacy:
Recording conversations without consent can be seen as an invasion of privacy, especially if the recording contains personal or sensitive information.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act:
This section outlines the requirements for the admissibility of electronic records, including voice recordings.
Case Law:
Various court judgments, including those from the Chhattisgarh High Court, have affirmed that recordings made without consent may not be admissible as evidence.

Recording a private conversation without consent may be admissible in Indian courts if it is relevant and not obtained illegally or in violation of the right to privacy. Courts may allow it as evidence, especially in criminal or matrimonial cases, if it serves the interest of justice and was not obtained through coercion or hacking.

Generally the recoding of the voices without parties consent is the infringement of the privacy of the person. But it can be recorded by the one party who involved in it without consent of the other party and will be admissible in the court.
But sometimes the recorded voice without the consent of any party can be admissible in the court to deliver the justice. In short we can say that sometimes the infringement of privacy doesn't matter for the justice.