In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that WhatsApp chats cannot be admitted as evidence in court without proper certification as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment was delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of Dell International Services India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze & Ors (W.P.(C) 4733/2024).
Background of the Case
The case arose from a consumer complaint filed by Adeel Feroze against Dell International Services India Private Limited before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Dell had filed its written statement after the prescribed 30-day period, which was objected to by Feroze. The District Commission refused to condone the 7-day delay in filing the written statement.
Dell challenged this order before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which upheld the District Commission’s decision. Subsequently, Dell filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the State Commission’s order.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issues before the court were:
1. Admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence without proper certification
2. Condonation of delay in filing written statement in consumer cases
3. High Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing orders of consumer commissions
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Dell’s petition, making several important observations:
1. On WhatsApp chats as evidence:
The court held that “The screen shot of whatsapp conversations cannot be taken into account by this Court while dealing with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when there is nothing to show that the conversations were produced before the State Commission”.
Furthermore, the court noted that “the Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872″.
2. On condonation of delay:
The court upheld the consumer commissions’ decision not to condone the delay in filing the written statement. It observed that as per Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the period for filing a written statement is 30 days, extendable by up to 15 days.
3. On High Court’s jurisdiction:
Justice Prasad clarified that while examining the matter under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court acts as an appellate authority exercising its power of superintendence. He stated, “Unless the view taken by the forum below is perverse or arbitrary, the Court does not interfere with the decision of the forum below under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.
Also Read
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the importance of proper certification for electronic evidence, as mandated by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It serves as a reminder to litigants and lawyers that WhatsApp chats, despite their ubiquity, cannot be casually introduced as evidence without following the prescribed legal procedures.
The case was argued by Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Mr. Hrithik Yadav, advocates for Dell International Services India Private Limited. The respondents, including Adeel Feroze, were not represented during the proceedings.
