Whatsapp Conversations Cannot Be Read As Evidence Without Proper Certification Under Evidence Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that screen shots of WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without proper certification as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “The screen shot of whatsapp conversations cannot be taken into account by this Court while dealing with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India…In any event, the Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872.”
Advocate Pratyush Miglani represented the petitioner.
The Court remarked, “Consumer Forums are Tribunals which are vested with the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them.”
Dell International Services India Private Limited (petitioner) challenged the order by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission) which upheld the earlier decision made by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (District Commission). The District Commission had held that the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the written statement was not bona fide.
The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 47B of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which the State Commission dismissed as there was no material irregularity. The petitioner, challenging this order, presented WhatsApp chat screenshots to show incomplete receipt of documents and their handover.
“The State Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, has come to the conclusion that no valid reason has been given by the Petitioner herein for condonation of delay in filing the written statement,” the Court noted.
The Court also explained that even though the writ petition filed was not a writ of certiorari, “it is well established that even assuming that the instant case is one under writ of certiorari, then also the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and the Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal has or has not acted without jurisdiction or contravened the principles of natural justice in the exercise of its jurisdiction.”
Consequently, the Court held that “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 High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Dell International Services India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4954)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Pratyush Miglani and Hrithik Yadav
