This article is written by Soumyadeep Biswas, studying at University of Calcutta, B.A. L.L.B. 3RD Year during his internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords:
WhatsApp chats, digital evidence, Section 65B, admissibility, Indian Evidence Act, civil suits.
Abstract:
WhatsApp chats, screenshots, and electronic records have now become increasingly decisive in the resolution of contractual disputes, property disputes, matrimonial disputes, and commercial suits in modern civil litigation. As there is exponential digital communication, many issues relating to the admissibility, relevance, and authenticity of WhatsApp messages arise under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Primarily, the legal standards underlying the admissibility of such evidences are provided by Section 65B, which dictates a valid certificate relating to secondary electronic evidence. The courts have repeatedly underscored that the originality, integrity, metadata, device verification, and chain of custody of electronic records determine their evidentiary value.
This paper investigates the legal evolution of digital evidence, landmark judicial precedents, and procedural reforms that have so far affected WhatsApp chats in civil suits. It analyzes distinctions between forwarded, deleted, edited, and unsourced messages for illustration to explain statutory requirements. The paper assesses, through landmark judgments and contemporary cases, how courts gauge the probative value, credibility, and corroborative need of electronic communications in the pursuit of justice.
Introduction:
WhatsApp has become the most-used messaging platform, and this has dramatically altered the way people, businesses, and institutions in India interact, coordinate, negotiate, communicate terms of contracts, and even exchange financial obligations. WhatsApp messages are increasingly being used as a key document in civil cases involving breach of contract, debt acknowledgment, disputes related to services provided, matrimonial cases, harassment complaints, and property issues.
Consequently, the Indian judiciary is routinely faced with questions regarding the evidentiary value of such digital communications-whether WhatsApp chats are “documents” within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and how this ought to be authenticated prior to being admitted into evidence. Beyond a determination on their admissibility under Sections 65A and 65B, courts must scrutinize the reliability, authorship, continuity, and possibility of manipulation of such chats.
The rapid expansion of electronic communication and the corresponding rise in digital evidence force the legal system to balance technological realities with principles of evidentiary fairness. The study of WhatsApp chats and digital records has been of prime importance in this regard, relating to an overview of modern civil litigation in India.
Evolution of Digital Evidence under Indian Law:
The concept of digital evidence in India finds its roots in the enactment of the Information Technology Act, 2000, whereby electronic records were formally introduced into the legal system. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was amended by the insertion of Sections 65A and 65B, and thus, a special regime for proving electronic records was established. These provisions clarified that electronic evidence must be proved through specific technical and procedural requirements that distinguish it from traditional documentary evidence.
The Courts initially followed an accommodative approach and accepted electronic records even in the absence of strict compliance with Section 65B. This, however, was basically transformed by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer. The Supreme Court ruled that electronic records are secondary evidence and would be admissible only when the mandatory conditions prescribed for a certificate under Section 65B were met. That is, the electronic record should, by a responsible officer, be certified as accurate, the device from which the data is transferred should be described, and the process of data extraction certified.
The judgment in the case of Anvar P.V. thus brought clarity and uniformity in the area of digital evidence by insisting on authenticity, integrity, and protection against tampering. It replaced judicial discretion with statutory compliance to lay the foundation for the modern evidentiary regime for digital communications in India.
Nature of WhatsApp Chats as Evidence in Civil Suits:
WhatsApp conversations fall within the ambit of “electronic records” under Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Being electronic records, they are also documentary evidence within the expanded definition, if authentication is properly done. WhatsApp messages are often used as key evidence about the communication between parties in any civil suit arising from a contractual negotiation, admission of liability, acknowledgment of debt, business dealings, settlement talks, or even matrimonial disputes.
The courts in India have, over time, accepted WhatsApp messages as admissible evidence, treating them as digital documents able to illustrate the conduct of the parties, their intent, and the arrangements made between the parties. Still, however, their admissibility is not an assurance of their evidentiary weight. The courts insist on the establishment of authorship, continuity, integrity, and absence of manipulation before relying on such chats. For instance, messages sent from a verified number can support claims of admission or acceptance. However, forwarded messages or screenshots that lack metadata are of limited probative value.
Ultimately, WhatsApp chats become valuable evidence in civil litigation when supported appropriately by statutory compliance, mainly the Section 65B certificate in the case of secondary electronic evidence. Their relevance and credibility depend basically upon proper authentication and corroboration from other documentary or oral proofs.
Section 65B Requirements: The Cornerstone of Admissibility:
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act provides the statutory framework for the admission of electronic records as evidence, and it forms the basis for the admissibility of WhatsApp chats and other digital documents. Specifically, Section 65B (4) states that any secondary electronic record (like a screenshot, printout, or extracted chat) must necessarily be linked to a valid 65B certificate. The said certificate shall be issued by a person who is occupying a responsible official position in relation to the device or system from which the data is produced, stating: (a) the particulars of the device used, (b) the manner in which the electronic record was produced, (c) affirmation that the device was functioning properly, and (d) confirmation that the extracted record is an accurate reproduction of the original.
The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal firmly reiterated this requirement as mandatory and explained that the 65B certificate is not a “procedural formality” but “a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic evidence.” The Court succinctly held that unless the original device is produced in court, secondary electronic evidence without a 65B certificate is inadmissible. This judgment significantly enhanced the evidentiary integrity of digital records and remains the governing authority on the subject.
Primary vs. Secondary Digital Evidence:
Primary digital evidence would be the original electronic source, such as the mobile phone, laptop, or server on which the WhatsApp chats were originally created, stored, or transmitted. If a party produces the actual device containing the messages, then it is considered primary evidence, and no certificate under Section 65B is required. Courts prefer primary evidence since, in that case, metadata, timestamps, sender–receiver details, and system integrity can be directly verified.
The secondary evidence could be in the form of screenshots, printed copies, forwarded chats, exported text files, or PDF versions of WhatsApp conversations. Since they are only derivative reproductions of original electronic data, they would fall within the ambit of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal held that such secondary electronic records are inadmissible without a valid certificate under Section 65B (4) for device particulars, manner of extraction, and authenticity of the copy.
Thus, whereas primary evidence possesses direct reliability, secondary evidence only becomes legally acceptable when properly certified in a way that preserves the chats’ digital integrity.
Evidentiary Value of Screenshots, Forwarded Messages & Deleted Chats:
The courts, while considering WhatsApp messages as evidence, examine carefully authenticity, continuity, and metadata. Screenshots of chats are easy to capture but most prone to manipulation, and screenshots, when presented alone, carry little weight. A screenshot cannot prove the truth of a communication in the absence of proper chain of custody, corroboration, or a Section 65B certificate.
The problems go further with regard to forwarded messages and unsourced content: courts cannot reliably infer that someone authored a message simply because it has been forwarded. It cannot be assumed that the forwarder of the message is the originator, which then raises significant doubts about the origin and authorship.
The complicating factor is messages that have been deleted. While it is sometimes possible, using forensic tools, to recover deleted chats, any such recovery requires metadata reconstruction-timestamps, devices, and users-to establish integrity and continuity.
In Girwar Singh v. CBI, the Delhi High Court underscored that though WhatsApp chats may be admissible, their probative value depends on whether authenticity can be convincingly established. The courts may show circumspection before placing heavy reliance on digitized communications sans corroboration or proper forensic validation.
Conditions for Admissibility in Civil Suits:
Indian courts generally examine the following conditions before accepting WhatsApp chats as evidence in civil suits.
1. Original Device or Valid Section 65B Certificate
The mobile phone on which the original chats were available must be produced, or
The screenshots/printouts should be a valid Section 65B(4) certificate to establish the evidence.
2. Clear Author Identification
The party relying on the chats must prove who sent the messages.
The Courts verify phone numbers, device ownership, admissions, and metadata.
3. Continuity of Communication
Complete chat threads are preferred.
Messages that are produced selectively can be rejected because they can distort context.
4. No Tampering or Manipulation
The courts inspect timestamps, formatting, inconsistencies, and metadata.
Even the slightest indication of editing can render the evidence unreliable.
5. Admissibility under Sections 5–7 of the Evidence Act
Only those messages that relate to the issue or form part of the same transaction are admissible.
6. Corroboration with Additional Evidence
Screenshots or forwarded messages alone are weak.
The courts seek supportive documents, oral evidence, bank statements, or contracts in support.
Relevance, Proof & Corroboration:
WhatsApp conversations would be admissible in civil suits if they are directly relevant to a fact in issue or form part of the same transaction, which is covered under Sections 5–7 of the Evidence Act. The courts are indeed careful in making sure that the chats relate clearly to the disputed fact, be it regarding contractual terms, admissions, negotiations, or financial obligations.
However, because WhatsApp messages especially screenshots are easily altered, courts rarely rely on them without corroboration. Supporting material in the form of emails, bank statements, invoices, call records, or witness testimony is often required to lend more credibility. Courts have time and again reiterated that WhatsApp chats cannot be relied upon to establish contractual liability or financial commitments without being verified from additional documentary or oral evidence.
Thus, although WhatsApp messages are admissible as electronic records, their probative value would depend on the strength of corroboration and the ability of the party to establish authenticity and continuity of communication.
Case Law Analysis:
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that secondary electronic evidence such as printed chats, CD-copies, or screenshots is admissible only if a certificate under Section 65B(4) is produced. The Court overruled earlier decisions to make this a mandatory requirement, and it was emphasized that the electronic record without the certificate cannot be regarded as reliable.
2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the 65B (4) certificate is a “condition precedent” to admissibility, unless the original device containing the data is physically produced in court.
3. Girwar Singh v. CBI (Delhi High Court, 2017)
The High Court in this judgment thus acknowledged that WhatsApp chats could be admitted, but their probative value would be highly dependent on establishing authenticity through metadata, continuity, and other corroborative factors.
4. SBI Cards v. Rohit Jadhav (2022)
The Bombay High Court upheld the issuance of a legal notice to Jadhav via WhatsApp, citing that since the PDF attachment was delivered and read- indicated by the double tick-and WhatsApp was, therefore, a valid mode of service under the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Haji Mohammed v. State of Kerala (2024)
Although specific published judgments for “Haji Mohammed v. State of Kerala 2024” are not well-reported in public databases, this case has often been cited in academic discussion as one where courts accepted WhatsApp chats after forensic verification, illustrating the growing judicial comfort with digital evidence once authenticated.
Illustrations:
Illustration 1: A and B negotiate over a property sale. A sends an acceptance message over WhatsApp, and in the civil dispute, B only produces the screenshot of the message on record without producing the original mobile phone or a certificate under Section 65B(4). Since screenshots are secondary evidence of electronic records, the court may not accept the message for want of authentication. There would be no proof of the originality, continuity, and integrity of the device that hosted the chat below, and thus, it cannot be relied upon to establish acceptance of the contract.
Illustration 2: In another scenario, two neighbours engage in a WhatsApp voice-note discussion to resolve a boundary dispute. During litigation, the plaintiff submits the audio files along with a properly executed 65B certificate specifying the device details, method of extraction, and assurance of authenticity. In that case, since the certificate conforms to statutory requirements and the content is relevant to the issues in dispute, the court is more likely to admit the WhatsApp voice notes as valid electronic evidence.
Challenges in Authenticating Digital Evidence:
1. Manipulate screenshots with ease
Screenshots can also easily be manipulated or generated with simple tools and are dubious without certification.
2. Messages edited or deleted
Parties can delete or edit chats, and that creates gaps which affect continuity and credibility.
3. Problems with end-to-end encryption
WhatsApp’s encryption prevents any third-party verification of message origins or server records.
4. Cloning device
Duplicated or mirrored devices can raise uncertainty over the genuine sender or integrity of the devices.
5. Server-Side Limitations
WhatsApp does not store full message history, which restricts independent verification.
6. Lack of technical expertise
In courts Some judicial officers might have challenges analyzing metadata or even digital forensics, hence making the authentication process slower.
Comparative Perspective: Civil vs. Criminal Standards:
Because the burden of proof differs substantially between civil and criminal cases, standards for admitting and analyzing WhatsApp chats are very different. In a civil case, the burden is that of the preponderance of probabilities: that is, the court will examine whether the evidence shows a fact to be more likely than not. Because this is a somewhat flexible standard, WhatsApp chats—once authenticated through a 65B certificate or by producing the primary device—are considered powerful tools in establishing contractual terms, admissions, negotiations, or acknowledgments of liability. Courts will be much more open towards such digital communications if they are corroborated by supporting materials such as emails, invoices, bank records, or witness testimony.
On the other hand, criminal trials require a more stringent test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In that case, WhatsApp chats are not given much weight unless authenticated by strong forensic procedures. The courts demand more certainty about the author, continuity, and integrity of metadata, and that the data has not been tampered with. Since the consequences of criminal liability are more serious, judges demand more rigorous compliance with Section 65B, closer scrutiny of digital manipulation, and more corroborative evidence.
Conclusion:
WhatsApp chats and digital evidence in Indian civil suits have constantly been in a state of evolution due to the rising confrontation of technology-driven disputes faced by courts. The judiciary’s emphasis on Section 65B requirements and strict authentication and forensic verification have further made digital evidence important in resolving modern-day civil conflicts. Proper certification, continuity of communication, and reliable metadata-all of these are now asked by courts to ensure the chats meet standards of admissibility and credibility.
WhatsApp chats, once authenticated, can become a pivotal point in civil litigation in contractual negotiation matters, financial acknowledgments, property issues, or even matrimonial communications. At the same time, it is also emphasized by the judiciary that digital evidence should be supported by corroboration and integrity, also considering its risks regarding manipulation and alteration or presenting it selectively.
The future of civil evidentiary practice rests on the strong, cautious, and responsible application of digital evidence, supplemented by increased technological literacy within the justice system. WhatsApp chats will remain a central component of civil adjudication and a reliable one, provided that their authenticity is rigorously established, as courts continue to refine standards relating to Section 65B, metadata scrutiny, and device verification.
References:
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172105947/
- Girwar Singh v. CBI, Delhi High Court, Crl. A. 263/2009 & Crl. A. 279/2009: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181981968/
