Before you engage in a mobile or online chat, you should know that all you say could later be considered legally binding, or at least it`s the implication of an ongoing case regarding WhatsApp. Below are the details of this case, as well as its implications. Since Mumbai HC has been hearing Aryan Khan`s bail applications, the question has arisen as to whether WhatsApp chats can be used as prima facie evidence against him. On Wednesday, Aryan`s legal team argued that his WhatsApp chats are not admissible as evidence in court. And according to Article 63 of the Evidence Act, “secondary evidence includes certified true copies and oral reports on the content of the document.” India Today Impact: Special teams examine illegal overnight construction work in Delhi The Mumbai cruise drug case has highlighted WhatsApp discussions in terms of legal value in court. Lawyer Ali Kashif Khan, lawyer for model Munmun Dhamecha — one of those arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in the case with actor Shah Rukh Khan`s son, Aryan Khan — said Tuesday that WhatsApp chats were not admissible in court. In legal cases where electronic communications services such as WhatsApp messages are essential to a party`s claim, the burden of proof lies with the organization that wishes to use an electronic record as evidence. In these cases, it is imperative for your business to invest in an enterprise messaging solution that can capture and record WhatsApp messages relevant to your business. Analyzing some of the cases where honorable courts have considered WhatsApp chats as evidence, we can easily conclude that the type of WhatsApp chats as evidence is usually secondary, as usually only the impressions of WhatsApp chats are presented to the court. The basic rule of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admission of “electronic documents” as evidence is that they must be presented in the primary form of evidence or that the document must be proved by primary evidence. Too much emphasis is placed on the primary nature of the evidence. In the same case, a chamber of 3 Supreme Court justices concluded that, according to the wording of section 65B(1) of the Evidence Act, there is a difference between the “original document” (which is essentially the primary evidence) and the output of the computer containing the same information (i.e., the secondary evidence). The Supreme Court also clarifies that it is not necessary to present a certificate to a court if the “original document” itself is presented.
And in all other cases, the electronic record under subsection 65B(1) may be transmitted with a certificate under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is mainly for this reason that the Government of India introduced in 2000 a special provision in the form of section 65A of the Evidence Act, which sets out certain conditions for the inclusion of secondary evidence as evidence in a case brought before a court. The Information Technology Act was also introduced by the Government in 2000, which shows a positive attitude on the part of the legislator towards the principle that “due to the changing needs and circumstances of this world, the law governing it should also change”. These are the views of the respective courts on the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence, but what about messages transferred by WhatsApp, did they have a legal obligation in court? The Delhi Supreme Court answered this question, which stated that the message transmitted by WhatsApp cannot be treated as evidence, it is not even considered a “document” within the meaning of the Evidence Act, without having its original in National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms v. Union of India. That in the context of criminal proceedings, a request for a reservation is legally admissible only pro. As for the different characteristics of the message, it is crucial that WhatsApp messages provide documentation: in its conclusion, the court compared the Whatsapp conversation to an email exchange and found that the WhatsApp chat, although it did not enter its name, contained the electronically printed name of the party. Moreover, at no time did the defendant deny that he had ever made these statements.
As a result, the court found that the debt repayment agreement was not prescribed by the Fraud Act. Accordingly, the court found that the exchange of texts constituted a legally binding agreement. “Evidence” is one of the most important talking points in the field of law. And in this modern world we live in, we are completely surrounded by social media and its platforms. We can find almost anything on the Internet or on social media. Nowadays, electronic records play an important role as evidence in the decision of a case. The two main laws governing electronic documents are the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and the Information Technology Act of 2000. One of the most used and successful social media platforms is WhatsApp for conversations. An interesting question that arises here is that these online conversations that we have on these social media platforms like WhatsApp play a role in the decision of a case; Are they legally binding? We will discuss these issues in detail in this article, but briefly we can say: “By changing the time, the law expands its scope and now the conversations we have on these social media platforms can be admitted to court as evidence in primary or secondary form, depending on the circumstances.” There is a law called the Evidence Act, sections 62 and 63 of which talk about primary and secondary evidence.
The main evidence is a document or case submitted to the court for inspection in the original. Secondary evidence is certified copies of the original document or oral reports on the contents of the original. Under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, “all documents, including electronic documents, submitted to the inspection of this court may be treated as evidence.” The party to whom the debt was owed used this conversation as a legally binding contract, since the conversation contained the party`s names and therefore an electronic signature. However, the party who owed the amount sought to cancel the contract by claiming that a WhatsApp conversation was unenforceable under New York`s fraud law. Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act tells us that “primary evidence means that the document itself was created for court inspection.” .