WhatsApp Conversations Can't Be Read As Evidence Without Mandatory Certificate Under Evidence Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872.Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea moved by Dell International Services India Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upholding the...
The Delhi High Court has observed that WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea moved by Dell International Services India Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upholding the District Commission's order refusing to take on record its written statement on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.
A complaint was filed against Dell by one Adeel Firoz before the District Commission in 2022.
Dell International filed a screenshot of a conversation between it and Firoz to demonstrate that the entire copy of the complaint along with all the annexures was not received by it and it was only handed over to its counsel before the District Commission on January 31, 2023.
The District Commission held that Dell's application for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the Written Statement was not bona fide.
Rejecting the plea, the court said that the screenshot of WhatsApp conversations could not be taken into account while dealing with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there was nothing to show that the conversations were produced before the State Commission.
“Further, there is no discussion of the same in the Order of the State Commission. In any event, the Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872,” the court said.
It further added that Dell filed its Written Statement only on January 31 last year and raised a plea that it had not received a complete set of documents along with the summons when, in fact, a complete set of documents was served to it along with the summons. "In view of the above, 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed,” the court said.
Title: DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADEEL FEROZE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 749