A Registrar Court at the Supreme Court said that service of notice on a party via instant messaging platform WhatsApp is not valid. “As per affidavit
“As per affidavit of dasti service, the notice is served on the sole respondent through ‘whatsapp’, which is not a valid mode of service as per (SupreCourt)rules,” Registrar Pavanesh D said while ordering fresh notice in a transfer petition at admission stage.
The development assumes significance in light of several High Courts permitting electronic service of notices, including via WhatsApp.
In 2017, Rohini Court in Delhi accepted WhatsApp blue double-tick as receipt proof of notice on the Respondents. The case concerned an Appeal filed by a Model Town resident, seeking an injunction against his son and daughter-in-law, her parents and her friend from “trespassing into the suit property”
During the hearing, the Court had asked the Appellant to send a notice to all five Respondents, and had clarified that the notices can be served via Whatsapp, considering the urgency of the situation. The Appellant had thereafter taken color printouts of the chats, with the blue-ticks visible.
These were then submitted to the Court, which was quoted as saying, “These defendants, thus, certainly have acquired knowledge of the summons and the hearing today.” The Judge however ordered that the Respondents be served again.
In SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt Ltd v. Rohidas Jadhav (2018), Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court had accepted service of notice in an execution application through WhatsApp. It had found that notice served in the form of a PDF file was not only delivered, but the attachment was opened as well.
“For the purposes of service of Notice under Order XXI Rule 22, I will accept this. I do so because the icon indicators clearly show that not only was the message and its attachment delivered to the Respondent’s number but that both were opened,” Justice Patel said.
Justice Patel had earlier set a precedent in April 2017, in the case of Kross Television India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikhyat Chitra Production (2017) in which he held that – “Indian Judiciary system is flexible enough to consider a notice issued through ‘WhatsApp’ or through email admissible in the court of law. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to go through extreme measures like that of a bailiff or through the ‘beat of a drum’ for the notice to be considered as properly served. The defendants were duly notified in the eyes of the court.”
