Unlocking the Legality: WhatsApp Chats as Evidence in Court Cases

"Discover the legal landscape surrounding WhatsApp chats as admissible evidence in court, and navigate their role in legal proceedings effectively."

whatsapp chats as evidence in court, legality of whatsapp chats, admissibility of whatsapp chats in court, using whatsapp chats as evidence in court, whatsapp chat transcripts as evidence, whatsapp chat screenshots as evidence, whatsapp chat metadata as evidence, whatsapp chat legal implications, whatsapp chat privacy laws, whatsapp chat admissibility laws

"Technology has become an integral part of our daily lives, and with that, the use of internet-based services in committing crimes has also increased. In this blog post, we will discuss the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a court of law."

"WhatsApp has become a ubiquitous part of our lives, and with that, it has also become a tool for criminals. In this blog post, we will discuss the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a court of law."

"The admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a court of law is a complex issue. In this blog post, we will discuss the legal principles that govern the admissibility of WhatsApp chats, and we will provide some tips for businesses and individuals who are considering using WhatsApp for communication."

Important Definitions

Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines an electronic record as data, record, or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or computer-generated microfiche.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines evidence as all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court. All such documents are considered as documentary evidence.

In this context, it's evident that electronic records submitted to the court hold the status of documentary evidence. To be admissible, electronic records must remain unaltered and free from tampering. This requirement is detailed in Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which outlines the conditions specified in Section 65B. In summary, Section 65B can be distilled into the following key points:

1. The evidence should be stored on a computer that is regularly used for storage purposes and accessed by a lawful possessor of the computer.

2. The content of the evidence must be input during the computer's routine operations or regular activities.

3. The computer must be fully operational and in good condition. If not, it must be provable in court that the evidence remains untampered and presentable.

4. The evidence must be presented in court in its original form as extracted during the regular course of the system's operation.

Can WhatsApp Chats Be Used as Primary Evidence in Court?

In the case of Girwar Singh v. CBI, the Delhi High Court held that electronic evidence that has been copied multiple times in various devices is inadmissible in court. This is because such evidence is considered to be secondary evidence, which is less reliable than primary evidence.

Primary evidence is the original document or recording, while secondary evidence is a copy of the original. WhatsApp chats are typically considered to be secondary evidence, as they are a copy of the original messages. However, there are some cases where WhatsApp chats may be considered as primary evidence. For example, if the original messages have been destroyed or lost, then the WhatsApp chats may be the only available evidence.

Ultimately, whether WhatsApp chats will be considered as primary or secondary evidence will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. If you are considering using WhatsApp chats as evidence in court, it is important to consult with an attorney to discuss your options.

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Landmark Case

The Supreme Court of India has clarified the admissibility of electronic evidence in a landmark case, Anvar v. P.K Baseer & Ors. The court held that the requirements given under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence. This means that any electronic evidence that is not produced in accordance with the requirements of Section 65B will be inadmissible in court.

The court also clarified that Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to secondary evidence in the form of electronic evidence. This means that the traditional rules of secondary evidence, such as the requirement for a 'satisfactory explanation' for the non-production of the original, do not apply to electronic evidence.

The Supreme Court's decision in Anvar v. P.K Baseer is a major step forward in the admissibility of electronic evidence in India. The decision provides clarity and certainty on the law, and will help to ensure that electronic evidence is treated fairly and consistently in the courts.

Supreme Court Relaxes Mandatory Requirements for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

The Supreme Court of India has relaxed the mandatory requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence in the case of Shafi Mohammed v. State of HP. The court held that electronic evidence presented without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be relied upon in certain cases.

The court held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a procedural requirement and not a substantive one. This means that the court can relax the requirement if it is satisfied that the interests of justice so require.

The court gave the following reasons for relaxing the requirement of a certificate:

• In some cases, it may be impossible to obtain a certificate, such as when the electronic device that produced the electronic record is no longer available.

• Requiring a certificate can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process, which can delay the administration of justice.

• Relaxing the requirement of a certificate will not prejudice the rights of the accused, as the court can still assess the authenticity and reliability of the electronic evidence on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court's decision in Shafi Mohammed v. State of HP is a significant development in the law of electronic evidence in India. The decision makes it easier for parties to present electronic evidence in court, and will help to ensure that electronic evidence is treated fairly and consistently.

In the matter of Vikas Garg & Others vs. State of Haryana (2017), the trial court utilized WhatsApp conversations to establish the guilt of the accused on charges of rape and other offenses. Subsequently, the Supreme Court halted the High Court's bail order, and as of the most recent available information, the Special Leave Petition remains pending before the honorable court.

In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court rejected an appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1850. The bench took into consideration WhatsApp chats between the involved parties, which were admitted by the prosecutrix during cross-examination. The court concluded that the contents of the chats indicated the prosecutrix's voluntary and non-coerced consent to engage in a physical relationship.

More recently, on January 6, 2020, the honorable Supreme Court granted an injunction under Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace, LLP Ltd. The court affirmed that WhatsApp messages, regarded as virtual communication, can be admitted as evidence. However, it was emphasized that the meaning and content of such virtual communication must be established through evidence presented during both direct examination and cross-examination in the course of the trial.

Conclusion

In recent years, we've noticed a common practice involving the submission of WhatsApp chats, as well as communications on various social media and instant messaging platforms, in the form of printed chat records. This approach effectively places WhatsApp chats outside the purview of Section 62, rendering them ineligible as primary evidence. However, the situation changes significantly when the mobile device containing the original WhatsApp conversation is presented in court. This could provide substantial grounds for considering them as primary evidence. Although the legal framework for electronic evidence is still relatively young, even two decades after the enactment of the Information Technology Act, 2000, we anticipate significant advancements in this area over the next five years.