Social Media As Evidence
β What is Social Media Evidence?
Social media evidence refers to any data, content, or communication from social networking platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter/X, YouTube, etc.) presented in court to support a legal argument. It includes:
Posts (text, photo, video)
Comments and replies
Messages (e.g., Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp)
Tweets or threads
Geolocation tags
Stories or disappearing content (via screenshots or metadata)
User profiles and timestamps
π KEY CHARACTERISTICS
1. Relevance
The content must be relevant to the legal issue. E.g., a Facebook post admitting to a crime, or Instagram stories showing someone's location.
2. Authenticity
The party presenting the evidence must prove the content is genuine and not doctored or fake. This includes:
Metadata (timestamps, device info)
IP logs
Witness testimony
Screenshots (less preferred than direct source data)
3. Admissibility
Even if relevant and authentic, it must be legally admissible:
In India: Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (for electronic records).
In the US: Under Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), especially Rule 901 (Authentication).
In the UK: Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 and PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act).
βοΈ IMPORTANT CASE LAWS β DETAILED DISCUSSION
1. Supreme Court of India β Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the need for a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence (like videos and social media content).
Held:
The Supreme Court relaxed the requirement for Section 65B certificate when the original source is not in the possession of the party. It allowed secondary evidence (like screenshots or copies) to be admissible under certain circumstances.
Significance:
Huge impact on how social media posts and messages can be presented as evidence when the original is not accessible.
2. India β State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019)
Facts:
The accused was charged with sexual harassment. WhatsApp chats between him and the victim were crucial evidence.
Held:
The High Court emphasized the need for authentication and certification under Section 65B for WhatsApp chats. It upheld the evidentiary value of properly retrieved and certified chats.
Significance:
Confirmed that WhatsApp chats are valid legal evidence if properly submitted with a certificate.
3. India β Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP (2020)
Facts:
The case involved disputes in a commercial agreement where emails and WhatsApp messages were introduced to prove consent.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that WhatsApp messages (with blue tick receipts) could show delivery and reading, but not necessarily valid consent unless further corroborated.
Significance:
Clarified evidentiary limits of social media and messaging platforms: they can support a claim but may not be conclusive proof of intent or agreement.
*4. USA β People v. Pierre (New York, 2015)
Facts:
Pierre was accused of assault. Prosecutors introduced Facebook messages where he boasted about the crime.
Defense Argument:
The defense challenged authenticity, claiming someone else may have used his account.
Held:
The court ruled that mere possession of a Facebook page is not enough. Prosecutors must prove that the accused authored the messages through IP logs, timestamps, account verification, etc.
Significance:
Set a high bar for authenticating social media evidence in criminal trials in the U.S.
*5. USA β Commonwealth v. Mangel (Pennsylvania, 2018)
Facts:
Social media posts from Snapchat and Facebook were introduced to challenge the accusedβs alibi.
Held:
Court ruled the prosecution failed to authenticate the posts properly. Since social media can be manipulated, the court needs strong technical evidence (e.g., metadata, witness testimony).
Significance:
Reinforced that mere screenshots or copies of posts are not admissible unless properly verified.
*6. UK β R v. Henton (2011)
Facts:
Henton was prosecuted for harassment and threats. Facebook messages and posts threatening the victim were introduced as evidence.
Held:
The court admitted the evidence after police obtained server-side data and verified account ownership and timestamps.
Significance:
One of the first UK cases where Facebook data was used to convict, demonstrating its importance in harassment and cybercrime cases.
7. India β Mona Avarsekar v. State of Maharashtra (2020)
Facts:
In a family dispute, social media posts were used to allege cruelty and emotional harassment under Section 498A IPC.
Held:
Bombay High Court accepted Facebook posts as circumstantial evidence but required supporting evidence (like witness testimony) to establish cruelty.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that social media alone may not be enough, but is admissible if backed by proper documentation.
*8. Canada β R v. Martin (2015)
Facts:
Accused was charged with assault; the victim submitted Instagram photos and Facebook posts showing injuries and threats.
Held:
Court admitted the photos, noting they were retrieved directly from the platform, metadata confirmed, and consistent with victimβs timeline.
Significance:
Highlighted best practices in presenting digital photos and posts as evidence.
π KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM CASE LAWS
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Authentication Required | Courts require proof that social media content is genuine (owner posted it, not altered). |
| Screenshots are Weak Evidence Alone | Unless accompanied by certification or metadata, screenshots may be rejected. |
| Section 65B Certificate (India) | Required for electronic records; but relaxed in special cases (Shafhi Mohammad). |
| Social Media is Admissible in Civil and Criminal Law | Used in defamation, custody battles, criminal trials, divorce, fraud, etc. |
| IP Logs and Metadata Crucial | Best way to establish authenticity is technical data from service providers. |
| Consent vs. Proof | Presence of a message doesn't always prove consent or agreement (see Ambalal Sarabhai). |
βοΈ USES OF SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE IN VARIOUS CASE TYPES
| Case Type | Use of Social Media |
|---|---|
| Criminal Cases | Threats, harassment, conspiracy, admissions of guilt |
| Family Law | Child custody, cruelty, adultery, abusive behavior |
| Civil Disputes | Defamation, breach of contract, employment disputes |
| Cybercrime | Identity theft, online abuse, blackmail, hacking |
| Divorce Proceedings | Proving cruelty, abandonment, hidden lifestyle or assets |
π CHALLENGES IN USING SOCIAL MEDIA AS EVIDENCE
Easily fabricated or manipulated
Anonymous or fake profiles
Deletion of content
Jurisdictional issues (foreign servers)
Privacy concerns
Chain of custody problems
β BEST PRACTICES FOR PRESENTING SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE
Collect full URLs and timestamps.
Download original data from platform (not screenshots alone).
Obtain server logs or IP data (where possible).
Use expert witnesses or forensic examiners.
Follow chain of custody protocols.
Submit Section 65B certificate (India) or follow FRE Rule 901 (US)
RELATED Blog
0 comments