In today's world, so much of our communication happens through WhatsApp messages and calls, making it entirely natural to wonder whether this kind of everyday digital communication can actually be relied upon in a courtroom. The reassuring answer is yes, they absolutely can be, provided they are presented and authenticated in accordance with the specific legal requirements governing electronic evidence in India.

The governing legal provision is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and specifically governs the admissibility of electronic records. Under this provision, information contained in an electronic record — which explicitly includes WhatsApp messages, emails, call logs, and similar digital communications — is deemed to be a document and can be admitted as evidence without needing to produce the original device on which it was created, provided the specific statutory conditions set out in the section are satisfied.

The central and most important requirement is the certificate requirement, contained specifically in Section 63(4) of the BSA. This provision requires that when electronic evidence is produced in the form of a printout or copied onto optical or magnetic media, it must be accompanied by a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing the manner in which it was produced, and confirming details about the device and its proper functioning at the relevant time, signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on this requirement has evolved considerably. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Court initially took a more relaxed approach, suggesting a certificate was merely optional. This position was significantly corrected in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, where the Court held decisively that the certificate requirement constitutes a complete code governing the admissibility of electronic records and is mandatory, not optional. Following some conflicting decisions, the Supreme Court, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, decisively reaffirmed the mandatory nature of this requirement while introducing important practical flexibility, including recognising that where a party is genuinely unable to obtain the certificate, they can seek the court's assistance to procure it.

Section 63 of the BSA has built upon this settled position, largely re-enacting the framework that developed under the old Section 65B, while introducing one significant change: the certificate requirement now contemplates dual signatures in certain circumstances, involving both the person controlling the relevant device and, in some formulations, a digital forensics expert, reflecting growing concern about digital manipulation and deepfakes.

For practical purposes, if you intend to rely on WhatsApp messages as evidence, avoid simply taking a screenshot, since a screenshot does not by itself satisfy the certificate requirements and can be relatively easily disputed as potentially altered or taken out of context. Instead, where possible, preserve the original chat directly on the source device, since courts and forensic experts can extract and authenticate messages directly from the source far more reliably than from a screenshot. If relevant to an ongoing police investigation, inform the investigating officer, who can arrange proper forensic extraction and certification directly from the device.

Similarly, for call records, the most reliable evidence comes from the official call detail records (CDRs) maintained by the telecom service provider, which can be formally requested through the police or through a court direction under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and which come with the kind of official record-keeping and certification that satisfies electronic evidence requirements far more reliably than an informal account.

If you have recorded an actual phone call, this recording is also treated as electronic evidence subject to the Section 63 BSA certificate requirements, and courts have emphasised, as in cases addressing recorded conversations, that the recording must be shown to be authentic, relevant, and free from tampering, ideally supported by testimony from the person who made the recording.

It is worth being aware that even where technical certificate requirements are properly satisfied, courts will scrutinise the content and context carefully, examining whether messages genuinely support the specific factual claims being made, whether they have been read in proper context, and whether the identity of the persons involved can be reliably established, since a phone number or WhatsApp account alone does not automatically prove which specific individual was using it at the relevant time.

Given how technical and easily overlooked these authentication requirements can be, it is genuinely valuable to consult an experienced advocate as early as possible if you anticipate needing to rely on WhatsApp messages or call records. You can get in touch with the team at Aapka Legal Advice for guidance on properly preserving and authenticating your digital evidence in compliance with Section 63 of the BSA.

Given how much depends on the specific technical details of how electronic evidence is preserved and certified, many litigants find real value in obtaining an independent, experienced perspective from the panel of retired judges available through certain legal consultation platforms.

If formal legal representation is required, you can browse Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice to find advocates with relevant experience.

In summary, WhatsApp messages and call records are indeed valid and admissible evidence in Indian courts, but only when the specific requirements of Section 63 of the BSA are properly satisfied, most importantly the mandatory certificate authenticating the electronic record as clarified by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal. Preserving your digital evidence carefully, ideally directly from the source device, and obtaining the necessary certification promptly gives you the strongest foundation for having this evidence recognised and relied upon.