Whatsapp, Email Admissibility
In modern legal proceedings, electronic communications such as WhatsApp messages and emails have become common sources of evidence. Courts have recognized the significance of these digital messages in establishing facts, proving intentions, or contradicting statements.
The key issues in the admissibility of WhatsApp messages and emails typically include:
Authenticity: Proving that the message or email was actually sent or received by the parties involved.
Integrity: Ensuring the content has not been tampered with or altered.
Relevance: The message or email must relate to the facts in issue.
Compliance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Specifically, sections related to electronic records (Section 65A and 65B) under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is especially critical, requiring a certificate from the person responsible for the electronic record, to prove its genuineness and accuracy.
Important Case Laws on WhatsApp and Email Evidence Admissibility:
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Summary: This landmark Supreme Court judgment clarified the importance of Section 65B of the Evidence Act in electronic evidence admissibility. It held that electronic records cannot be admitted unless the conditions of Section 65B are fulfilled.
Principle: Without a proper certificate as per Section 65B, electronic evidence, including WhatsApp chats and emails, is inadmissible.
Impact: This decision set the foundation that every party seeking to admit electronic communication must produce a Section 65B certificate proving the authenticity of the digital evidence.
2. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Summary: The Supreme Court clarified that a delay or non-production of a Section 65B certificate at the initial stage does not necessarily mean the evidence is inadmissible. It allowed courts some discretion, especially if the authenticity was not in dispute.
Principle: The certificate requirement can be relaxed if the opposing party does not challenge the authenticity or the electronic document is voluntarily produced.
Impact: This softened the strictness of Anvar’s ruling in practical cases, allowing WhatsApp messages or emails to be admitted if authenticity is clear or undisputed.
3. State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) – “Sukha Singh” case
Summary: Although predating the IT Act amendments, this case discussed the concept of “electronic evidence” and admissibility, emphasizing the need for corroboration and safeguards to prevent fabricated electronic evidence.
Principle: Courts must ensure proper verification and corroboration before accepting electronic communication like emails and messages.
Relevance: This judgment laid early groundwork for the cautious approach courts take with electronic evidence, including WhatsApp and emails.
4. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Motorola Inc. (2006)
Summary: This Telecom Disputes case dealt with emails as evidence. The court held that electronic evidence is admissible if it is reliable, authentic, and relevant.
Principle: Emails, like any other document, need to be properly authenticated and can be relied upon if these conditions are met.
Impact: This case affirms the general acceptance of email communication as valid evidence if proper procedures are followed.
5. Dinesh Dalmia v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015)
Summary: The Delhi High Court held that WhatsApp messages can be considered as evidence provided they are relevant, authentic, and properly proved.
Principle: WhatsApp chats can be admissible evidence like other electronic records, subject to authentication and compliance with the Evidence Act.
Impact: This was one of the first significant judgments specifically discussing WhatsApp messages, recognizing their importance in modern evidence law.
Summary of Legal Principles for WhatsApp and Email Admissibility:
Section 65B Compliance: A certificate proving the electronic record’s authenticity and integrity is mandatory.
Authentication: Parties must prove that messages or emails originated from the alleged sender.
Relevance & Reliability: Evidence must be relevant and not tampered with.
Court Discretion: Courts may exercise discretion if authenticity is not disputed.
Corroboration: Courts often look for corroborating evidence to support electronic communication.
RELATED Blog
0 comments