In recent times, all of us have switched over to the electronic media be it socializing, marketing, banking, etc. social media being the most in demand comes in with a lot of advantages and disadvantages. People usually think that abusing or harassing someone on social media is okay as they are not authorities to take swift actions.
But i am here to tell you that anything you comment about on social media, for eg :- telegram,whatsapp,instagram ,ect is admissible in the court of law in India. according to sec 65b of the Indian evidence act, electronic means of communication are admissible in court. by taking the case of whatsapp
there are certain conditions to be fulfilled for the admissible of WhatsApp messages as evidence:
1The messages must be received by the receiver.
2The phone must be in regular use. It should not be damaged.
3The sender must have intention to send that messages.
As everything is becoming digital nowadays, to make the Indian Judiciary more advanced and techno- friendly, the parliament had enacted the Information and technology Act,2000 to smoothen the functioning if there’s a group on WhatsApp the admin is not liable for the messages of the group members
Cases to support
Till now, it is proved that SMS/MMS, WhatsApp messages and other electronic evidences are fully admissible in the courts of India, in State of Delhi v. Mohd. Afzal and others, known as Afzal Guru case, it was held by the Supreme Court of India that electronic confirmations are lawfully conceded in the courtroom. The Supreme Court likewise clear the uncertainty with respect to abuse and exactness of these confirmations because of specialized blunders. The Supreme court should request a declaration endorsed by an individual who is working PC asset and producing that data. That individual should assume full liability about the genuineness of such archive. In any case, weight of verification is on that individual who is testing the electronic information.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru[(2005) 11 SCC 600 by the division bench of the Supreme Court. The court specifically observed that the Judgment of Navjot Sandhu supra, to the extent, the statement of the law on admissibility of electronic evidence pertaining to electronic record of this Court, does not lay down correct position and required to be overruled.
The only options to prove the electronic record/evidence is by producing the original electronic media as Primary Evidence court or it’s copy by way secondary evidence U/s 65A/65B of Evidence Act. Thus, in the case of CD, DVD, Memory Card etc. containing secondary evidence, the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
Relying upon the judgment of Anvar P.V. supra, while considering the admissibility of transcription of recorded conversation in a case where the recording has been translated, the Supreme Court held that as the voice recorder had itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version. Without source, there is no authenticity for the translation. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for electronic evidence. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, while deciding the charges against accused in a corruption case observed that since audio and video CDs in question are clearly inadmissible in evidence, therefore trial court has erroneously relied upon them to conclude that a strong suspicion arises regarding petitioners criminally conspiring with co-accused to commit the offence in question. Thus, there is no material on the basis of which, it can be reasonably said that there is strong suspicion of the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the offence in question. Ankur Chawla Vs. CBI