The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has held that a notice of appearance sent via WhatsApp does not constitute valid legal service under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Finding a senior police officer guilty of “willful disobedience” of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).
The primary legal question before the Court was whether an arrest carried out after providing notice only via an electronic messaging platform (WhatsApp) was legally sustainable. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar ruled that such communication is not a recognized substitute for the modes of service prescribed by law. Consequently, the Court held Respondent No. 1, Pushpendra Singh Rathod, guilty of contempt of court for violating the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ravi Meena, was named in FIR No. 346/2021 registered on September 14, 2021, by the ACB, Jaipur, for alleged offences under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018, and Section 120-B of the IPC.
On January 25, 2023—over a year after the FIR was registered—the Investigating Officer (IO) sent a notice to the petitioner via WhatsApp, directing him to appear on January 31. The petitioner responded on January 30, explaining that he could not join the investigation immediately because his wife was pregnant and suffering from health complications. He requested 30 days to appear. The investigating agency did not respond to this request and did not attempt to serve a formal notice through physical means, such as speed post or affixation. Instead, the police arrested Meena on February 1, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest was arbitrary and violated the mandatory guidelines in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. They contended that the WhatsApp message was not a valid notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and that the IO arrested the petitioner without recording any valid reasons or satisfying the necessity for arrest.
The respondents justified the arrest, claiming the petitioner’s conduct was “evasive” and that his request for time was a delay tactic. They argued that a checklist had been prepared and reasons recorded before the arrest. They also pointed out that the petitioner’s earlier attempts to quash the FIR had been dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and claimed the contempt petition was a measure to “pressurize” the agency.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. alongside the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil. It noted that the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, had specifically issued Standing Order No. 11/2022, which mandates that notices under Section 41-A must be served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the Code.
Regarding the mode of service, the Court observed:
“It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.”
The Court further held that the failure to use recognized modes of service, such as personal service or speed post, “undermines the contention of due compliance with the statutory mandate.” Justice Bhatnagar emphasized the gravity of the violation:
“The procedure prescribed by law is not an empty formality; it constitutes the essential safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
The Court also observed that while the petitioner had promptly responded to the WhatsApp message, the agency ignored his reply and proceeded to arrest him without “independent application of mind.”
Decision of the Court
The Court expressed satisfaction that the officer’s conduct demonstrated a “clear departure” from the law. The judgment stated:
“This Court is satisfied that Respondent No. 1, Pushpendra Singh Rathod, has committed contempt by violating the Principles laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) and breached the personal liberty of the petitioner without adhering to the principles laid down in the aforesaid case.”
The Court has directed Pushpendra Singh Rathod to remain present in person on April 6, 2026, when the matter will be heard for an order on sentencing.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ravi Meena v. Pushpendra Singh Rathod & Ors.
- Case No.: S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 507/2023
- Bench: Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
- Date: March 23, 2026
