WhatsApp conversations can’t be used as evidence in courts without proper certification under Indian Evidence Act: Delhi High Court

New Delhi, July 6

WhatsApp conversations cannot be used as evidence in a court without a proper certificate as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Delhi High Court has said.

The ruling came on an appeal filed by Dell International Services India Private Ltd against the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’s December 2023 order upholding a district consumer court’s refusal to take on record the company’s written statement on the ground of delay.

Dell India contended that it did not receive the entire complaint copy and its annexures in time from the complainant’s counsel before the district consumer court.

However, a Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to consider the screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation with the complainant in support of the company’s claim.

“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 as this Court does not find any reference of the same in the present Writ Petition. Further, there is no discussion of the same in the Order of the State Commission,” Justice Prasad said.

After examining the matter in detail after calling for postal receipts of the documents which were sent along with the summons received by Dell, the district consumer court had refused to take on record the company’s written statement on grounds of delay. The state commission concluded that a complete set of documents was sent along with the summons and the same was received by Dell.

“The District Commission, therefore, held that the application of the Petitioner herein for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the Written Statement is not bona fide,” it said.

The high court said, “…this court does not find any reason to hold that the reason given by the District Commission in refusing to condone the delay in filing the written submission is erroneous.”