Delhi High Court: WhatsApp Conversations Require Certification as Evidence

Delhi High Court Rules on WhatsApp Conversations as Evidence

In a pivotal ruling regarding the evidentiary value of WhatsApp conversations, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case Dell International Services India Private Limited vs Adeel Feroze & Ors (W.P.(C) 4733/2024, Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:4954), pronounced on July 2, 2024. The court unequivocally stated that WhatsApp conversations cannot be utilized as evidence without a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872. This ruling emphasizes the requirement for a valid certificate for WhatsApp communications to be considered admissible evidence.

Case Background

The court examined a petition from Dell International Services India Private Limited, which challenged a decision from the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The commission upheld the District Commission's ruling that refused to accept Dell’s written statement because it was submitted beyond the limitation period.

Key Facts

• Adeel Firoz filed a complaint against Dell in 2022.
• Dell provided a screenshot of a conversation with Firoz to demonstrate that it did not receive the complete complaint, which was only made available to its counsel on January 31, 2023.
• The court referenced this communication but ultimately stated that WhatsApp conversations cannot serve as evidence without an accompanying certificate.

Court Proceedings

The Single Judge Bench, led by Hon'ble Justice Subramonium Prasad, noted the following procedural aspects:

1. Jurisdictional Reference: In the opening paragraphs of the judgment, Justice Prasad referred to the petitioner’s appeal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, contesting the order made by the State Commission regarding the written statement's acceptance.

2. Proposal for Civil Miscellaneous Main (CMM) Petition: The bench suggested that filing a CMM would be more appropriate while addressing this matter under Article 226, but this suggestion was declined by the counsel for Dell.

3. Scope of Judicial Review: The court clarified its role, stating that under Article 226, it serves original jurisdiction, whereas under Article 227, it functions as an appellate authority.

Key Findings

Several notable observations emerged from the ruling:

• Limitations on Evidence: The court stressed that WhatsApp conversations are not admissible as evidence in the absence of a proper certification as outlined in the Evidence Act, 1872. This conclusion was highlighted when addressing the lack of documentation submitted to the State Commission regarding the WhatsApp conversations.

• Examination of Summons and Documentation: The bench discussed the timeline of the consumer complaint filed on September 19, 2022, and how the District Commission considered the evidence and the delay in filing the written statement.

• Critical Examination of Delays: The court remarked that the District Commission had adequately examined the postal receipts and determined that a complete set of documents was indeed received. Consequently, the request for condonation of delay in filing the written statement was denied.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court ruled to dismiss the petition and reiterated the necessity of a certificate for WhatsApp conversations to be considered valid evidence. This ruling serves as a clear reminder of the importance of adhering to evidentiary requirements, ensuring that all communications presented in court meet the statutory conditions specified under the Evidence Act, 1872.

As such, courts must ensure that before accepting WhatsApp conversations as evidence, they are accompanied by the required certification, as reinforced by the Delhi High Court’s decision in this landmark ruling.