Courts in India have started accepting service of docu accepting ments sent through Whats App to be valid in certain situations. But the issue remains complex.
A major requirement for a Whats App document to be a valid court service is the ability to prove deliv ery. Traditionally, a clear paper trail was created through registered mail or in-person delivery to demon strate that the intended recipient has received the documents. With WhatsApp, the challenge lies in es tablishing irrefutable evidence of delivery. However, WhatsApp offers features like read receipts and ac knowledgment indicators, which can serve as evidence of delivery and receipt of documents. When arecipient opens and reads.
message, the sender can receive a read receipt, providing a timestamp as proof of delivery. And, if the recip ient acknowledges receiving the message or responds to it, it further strengthens the case for the validity of WhatsApp documents as court service.
VALIDITY INDICATORS
Verification mechanisms, such as digital signatures or encryption, can help ensure that the documents have not been tampered with and that they originate from the identi fied sender. Confidentiality of docu ments and service is another con cern faced by courts, however, WhatsApp claims to incorporate end-to-end encryption.
There are many instances where courts have accepted service done via WhatsApp to be valid. The Delhi High Court set a precedent in 2017 in Tata Sons is John Does, by allowing service of summons through What sApp after the defendants evaded service though regular modes. Thereafter, in SBI Cards and Pay ments vs Rohidas Jadhay, the Bombay High Court accepted the service of notice in an execution application after finding that the PDF file containing the notice had not only been served but the attachment had also been opened by the opposite party. Justice GS Patel observed, “I will ac cept this. I do so because the icon in dicators clearly show that not only was the message and its attachment delivered to the respondent’s num ber, but that both were opened.”
Justice GS Patel at Bombay High Court in Kross Tolevision vs Vikhyut Chutra Production has also held that the purpose of service is to put the other party to notice. Where an al ternative mode (email and Whats App) is used and service is shown to be effected and acknowledged, it cannot be suggested that there was ‘no-notice’.
The Rohini Civil Court at Delhi in a case has also accepted the blue double-tick sign in a WhatsApp message as valid proof that the mes sage’s recipients had seen a case-related notice.
The Supreme Court is yet to lay down a precedent or ruling accept- ing WhatsApp as valid medium of service. The acceptance of Whats- App documents as valid court ser- vice is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of factors such as proof of delivery, acknow- ledgment, authentication and ad- herence to legal frameworks.
As Indian courts continue to nav- igate the digital landscape and em- brace technology, it is essential for legal professionals and technology providers to work together to estab- lish clear guidelines and standards that safeguard the integrity of court proceedings while embracing the ef ficiencies offered by modern com- munication platforms like Whats App.