These conditions must be met when WhatsApp or electronic evidence is presented to the court as secondary evidence. Another requirement set out in section 65B of the Evidence Act is that the parties must provide a certificate detailing the details of the electronic records so that the courts can admit the electronic records into evidence. In order to admit the secondary nature of electronic evidence as evidence in court, there are four basic requirements under Section 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act: While WhatsApp content is generally admissible in court, there are still specific guidelines on how to provide that evidence. This article presents cases where content shared on WhatsApp has been successfully cited as evidence in civil lawsuits. This 2015 High Court case dealt with the admissibility of WhatsApp messages as documentary evidence in court. Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) set out the following four conditions that must be met for secondary evidence to be admissible; In short, those who want to present WhatsApp as evidence in court must ensure that the requirements in the case of Mok Yii Chek are met and that the time factor, the identity of the sender and recipient, and the manufacturing risk have been properly taken into account. WhatsApp messages shouldn`t be the only evidence when more conclusive evidence is available. His claim is not false, but only answers part of the question: are WhatsApp chats admissible as evidence in court? The short answer would be both “yes” and “no”. Therefore, through this discussion, we can say that the law of evidence categorically allows and admits the probative value of WhatsApp chat. However, the requirements mentioned in section 65B must be met, otherwise the probative value of WhatsApp chats is zero. When it comes to technological evidence, the courts are still hesitant because technology is unpredictable, but the agenda is to modernize our courts. [1] “Malaysians are the world`s biggest WhatsApp users”, New Straits Times, 12.
September 2017, www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/bots/2017/09/278936/malaysians-are-worlds-largest-whatsapp-users[2] [2017] MLJU 2236[3] Razman Abdullah v Azim Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Aziz [2015] 1 CLJ 706[4] [2015] 1 LNS 448[5] Section 3, Evidence Act 1950[6] Section 5, ibid.[7] Articles 61-90, ibid.[8] [2017] 1 ILR 292[9] [2016] 1 LNS 1434 Recently, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the certificate required under section 65B, Paragraph 4, is a prerequisite for the admissibility of evidence by electronic record. Thus, it is now a permanent law that if the requirement of section 65B(4) is not met, WhatsApp chat is not admissible as evidence. If these four conditions are met, WhatsApp chats could be admitted as evidence in court. Based on these four conditions, it was decided that electronic evidence in the Delhi State v. Mohd Ahazal case, commonly referred to as the Parliament Attack case. The Court noted that, although no formal written agreement was signed, it is trivial that the Contracts Act 1950 does not require a written agreement to be enforceable.[3] As long as the underlying principles of a contract/agreement are respected, the contract/agreement is deemed valid and enforceable. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement set out in section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is essential for electronic documents to be admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the decision in Anvar P V v P K Baseer and Others and set aside the judgment in Shafhi Mohammed v.
State of Himachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court further noted that if the person submitting the relevant information is not in possession of the original computer or device, he or she may request the assistance of the court in obtaining an appropriate certificate as defined in section 64B (4) of the Evidence Act. 4. The information contained in the duplicate submitted to the court corresponds to the original electronic document. The court held that printed WhatsApp messages fall within the broad meaning of “document” under the Evidence Act 1950 [5] and can therefore be admitted into evidence in court as long as: However, electronic data is easy to manipulate, create, copy and even destroy from one medium to another. As a result, electronic evidence can be easily manipulated by nature, and the probative value of evidence may not be as strong as physical evidence. In addition, the quality, admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence may be affected by various measures. In court, the evidence must be proven beyond a doubt, and in this case, the electronic evidence might be a bit rotten.