In an era where over 1.2 billion Indians rely on WhatsApp for daily communication, a pressing question arises for litigants, lawyers, and businesses: Can these casual chats hold up in court? The answer is a qualified yes. WhatsApp conversations, as electronic records, are admissible as evidence under Indian law, but only if they meet stringent certification and authentication standards. This article delves into the legal framework, pivotal judicial precedents, procedural requirements, evidentiary value, challenges, and practical strategies for leveraging WhatsApp evidence effectively. Drawing from the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), and landmark Supreme Court rulings, we provide a roadmap for practitioners and parties alike.

​Evolution of Electronic Evidence Law in India

The admissibility of digital evidence traces back to amendments in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), introduced via the Information Technology Act, 2000. Sections 65A and 65B of the IEA specifically addressed "electronic records," defining them as data generated, stored, or transmitted electronically, including WhatsApp messages, voice notes, and media files.

​A watershed moment came in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, where the Supreme Court mandated a mandatory certificate under Section 65B (4) for secondary electronic evidence. The Court overruled prior lenient interpretations, holding that uncorroborated printouts or CDs are inadmissible without this certificate, emphasizing the ease of tampering in digital formats. This ruling stemmed from an election petition where electronic records lacked authentication, underscoring the need for procedural safeguards.

The BSA, effective July 1, 2024, modernized this regime. Section 63 mirrors Section 65B but expands scope to "communication devices" like smartphones, explicitly covering WhatsApp. Subsection (1) deems printed, stored, or copied electronic information admissible if accompanied by a certificate under subsection (4). Subsection (2) outlines conditions: the device was in regular use, operated properly, and the record is accurate. Definitions in subsection (5) clarify "computer output" includes outputs from devices like mobiles.

Section 63 BSA: The Certification Mandate Dissected

At the heart of admissibility lies the Section 63(4) certificate, a twin-part document without which WhatsApp chats are mere hearsay. Part A, from the "producer" (device owner/user), must detail:

1.     Identification of the electronic record.

2.     Manner of production (e.g., WhatsApp export on specific date).

3.     Device particulars (model, OS version).

4.     Assurance of no alterations post-production.

Part B, ideally from an independent expert, verifies the hash value (digital fingerprint) matches the original, confirming integrity via forensic tools like Cellebrite or Autopsy.

​The Delhi High Court in Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (July 2024) exemplified rejection: WhatsApp screenshots in a consumer dispute writ were dismissed for lacking this certificate. Justice Subramanium Prasad noted, "WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without... a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act." Even blue ticks (delivery/read receipts) were insufficient absent certification.

Exceptions exist: If the witness produces the original device (e.g., smartphone), no certificate is needed per Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 14 SCC 1. In this election petition, WhatsApp messages proving late nominations were admitted via the petitioner's phone, clarifying Section 65B(4)(a).

Judicial Precedents: Wins, Losses, and Nuances

The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao (July 14, 2020) provided a comprehensive framework. A Shiv Sena candidate's victory by 296 votes was challenged via WhatsApp evidence of delayed filings. The Court upheld admissibility when originals are produced but reiterated certification for copies, rejecting a blanket waiver. This 280-page judgment harmonized Sections 65B with general evidence principles, stressing relevance and probative value.

High Courts have applied these rigorously. In a 2024 Delhi HC ruling, chats in a service dispute were inadmissible sans certificate, reinforcing Anvar's rigidity even in writs under Article 226. Conversely, matrimonial disputes show leniency. The Chhattisgarh High Court (February 2026) ruled WhatsApp chats and call recordings admissible despite privacy claims, citing Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It held relevant, genuine material, even illegally obtained – aids adjudication, overriding Evidence Act strictures. Referencing Vibhor Garg v. Neha (SC 2025), the Court clarified spousal communications lack absolute privilege in dissolution suits.

Other cases: Bombay HC in Suleman Noormohamad vs. State of Maharashtra (2022) accepted certified chats proving extortion. Madras HC rejected uncertified forwards in a cheating case (2023). Trends indicate rising acceptance in commercial (contracts), criminal (threats), and family matters, with 2025-2026 seeing BSA's first major tests.

​ In Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State (Delhi HC 2023), chats proved conspiracy when corroborated. However, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) cautioned against over-reliance on unverified digital evidence.

Under BSA, electronic signatures (Section 62) enhance if chats include OTPs. Voice notes require spectrographic analysis.

Challenges and Pitfalls

Digital evidence's Achilles' heel is tampering:

Fakes: Deepfake chats via apps like SSHP (Social Shredder/Hacker/Prank).

Deletion: WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption hinders recovery.

Forwards: Lose metadata; sender untraceable.

Privacy: Article 21 claims, but Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) balances with relevance.

Deletion presumption (Section 114) favors diligence. BSA mandates hash verification to counter.

WhatsApp chats are powerful, but powerless without certification. Anvar and Arjun Panditrao endure under BSA Section 63, comply, or comply with rejection.

​