The Delhi High Court ruled that WhatsApp chats cannot be used as evidence in court without proper certification under the Indian Evidence Act. This decision came in the case of Dell International Services India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze, where the court addressed delays in filing a written statement in a consumer dispute complaint.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that WhatsApp chats cannot be admitted as evidence in court unless they are properly certified as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act. This ruling was delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad.
Background of the Case:
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by Adeel Feroze against Dell International Services India Private Limited before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The crux of the complaint involved Dell’s delayed submission of a written statement. Feroze objected to the submission as it was filed after the prescribed 30-day period. The District Commission upheld Feroze’s objection, refusing to condone the 7-day delay in filing the statement.
In response, Dell challenged this decision before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission, however, upheld the District Commission’s order. Consequently, Dell filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a review of the State Commission’s order.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were:
- Admissibility of WhatsApp Chats as Evidence: Whether WhatsApp chats can be considered admissible evidence without proper certification under the Indian Evidence Act.
- Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement in Consumer Cases: Whether the delay in filing a written statement in consumer cases can be condoned.
- High Court’s Jurisdiction in Reviewing Orders of Consumer Commissions: The extent to which the High Court can review and overturn the orders passed by consumer commissions.
Justice Subramonium Prasad meticulously examined the nuances of the Indian Evidence Act regarding electronic evidence. He emphasized that electronic records, including WhatsApp chats, must comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which necessitates proper certification.
Justice Prasad noted-
“WhatsApp chats, classified as electronic records, require certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for admission as evidence in court.”
He further clarified-
“This requirement aims to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence.”
In addressing the condonation of delay in filing the written statement, the court held that consumer commissions must adhere strictly to the procedural timelines set forth.
Justice Prasad remarked-
“While consumer commissions are established to expedite grievance resolution, they must also uphold procedural timelines to maintain process integrity.”
On the matter of the High Court’s jurisdiction, Justice Prasad asserted-
“The High Court, empowered by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, can review and overturn orders issued by consumer commissions if it identifies a miscarriage of justice.”
This judgment has significant implications for the admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian courts. The ruling reinforces the necessity for proper certification of electronic records to ensure their reliability and authenticity. It also underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in consumer disputes to facilitate swift and fair resolution.
Legal experts believe this judgment will have a far-reaching impact on how electronic evidence is handled in Indian courts.
Advocate Arjun Gupta commented-
“This ruling underscores the strict requirements for electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. It is expected to compel parties to ensure proper certification of all electronic records before submitting them in court.”
The decision also highlights the High Court’s role in overseeing the functioning of consumer commissions, ensuring that justice is served without undue delays or procedural lapses.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Dell’s petition, offering several key insights and observations that carry significant implications for legal proceedings in India. Here, we delve into the details of the court’s decision, particularly focusing on the admissibility of electronic evidence, delay condonation, and the jurisdiction of the High Court.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Launches ‘KHJ-Daily’ WhatsApp Service for Reported Judgments
On WhatsApp Chats as Evidence
One of the pivotal aspects of the ruling was the treatment of WhatsApp chats as evidence.
Justice Prasad stated unequivocally-
“The Delhi High Court cannot consider WhatsApp conversation screenshots in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when there is no evidence that these conversations were presented before the State Commission.”
This observation underscores the necessity for presenting evidence in accordance with established legal protocols.
Further emphasizing this point, the court noted-
“The WhatsApp conversations cannot be considered as evidence without a proper certificate as required under the Evidence Act, 1872.”
This statement highlights the stringent requirements set by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which necessitates proper certification for electronic evidence to be deemed admissible in court. This ruling thus serves as a critical reminder to litigants and legal practitioners about the importance of adhering to these legal standards.
Justice Prasad also addressed the issue of delay in filing the written statement. The court upheld the decision of the consumer commissions not to condone the delay, citing the relevant statutory provisions. According to Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019–
“The period for filing a written statement is 30 days, which can be extended by an additional 15 days.”
This provision clearly outlines the permissible timeframe, and the court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to these deadlines.
On High Court’s Jurisdiction
In another significant observation, Justice Prasad clarified the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction while examining matters under Articles 226 and 227.
He explained-
“Unless the decision of the forum below is deemed perverse or arbitrary, the Court does not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
This statement delineates the appellate authority of the High Court, emphasizing that it acts in a supervisory capacity and intervenes only in cases where the lower forum’s decision is deemed irrational or capricious.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Demands WhatsApp’s Response on Couple’s Request to Remove Explicit Video
This ruling has far-reaching implications, particularly concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. It reiterates the necessity of proper certification for such evidence, as outlined in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In an era where digital communications are ubiquitous, this serves as a crucial reminder that legal protocols must be meticulously followed to ensure the validity of evidence presented in court.
Additionally, the decision on delay condonation reinforces the importance of complying with statutory deadlines, thereby promoting efficiency and discipline in legal proceedings. The clarification on the High Court’s jurisdiction further delineates the boundaries of judicial review, ensuring that lower forums’ decisions are respected unless demonstrably flawed.
The case was argued by Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Mr. Hrithik Yadav, advocates for Dell International Services India Private Limited. Notably, the respondents, including Adeel Feroze, were not represented during the proceedings.
CASE TITLE:
Dell International Services India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze & Ors.
