If you are wondering whether WhatsApp messages as evidence can help prove or defend a criminal case, the short answer is yes. WhatsApp chats, voice notes, photographs, and call detail records are now among the most common forms of evidence in Indian criminal courts. However, they are not accepted automatically. The law sets clear requirements for how electronic evidence must be collected, preserved, certified, and connected to the person concerned. Many strong cases have weakened because these requirements were ignored, and many weak accusations have been exposed because the digital evidence was unreliable. This guide explains how such evidence works, what courts look for, and how both complainants and accused persons should handle it.

Let me begin with the legal framework. Since 1 July 2024, the law of evidence in India has been governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Criminal procedure is now governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and offences by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The BSA expressly recognises electronic and digital records as evidence, and it has strengthened the rules governing their admissibility.

Under Section 2(1)(d) of the BSA, the definition of "document" includes electronic and digital records, and under Section 2(1)(e), "evidence" includes all documents, including electronic or digital records, produced for the inspection of the court. Section 61 of the BSA provides that nothing in the Act shall deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record on the ground that it is electronic, and that such records have the same legal effect as other documents, subject to Section 63. This means WhatsApp chats and call records are fully capable of being evidence.

The key question is how electronic evidence is proved. The BSA distinguishes between primary and secondary evidence. Under Section 57, primary evidence means the document itself, and the Explanations to that section provide that an electronic record stored or created in multiple files is primary evidence in each instance, and that an electronic record produced from proper custody is primary evidence unless disputed. So the original phone or device containing the chat is usually primary evidence, while printouts, screenshots, or copies are usually secondary evidence.

Secondary electronic evidence must satisfy Section 63 of the BSA, which replaced Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It requires a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing how it was produced, and confirming that the device was operating properly. The BSA introduced a certificate format in its Schedule with two parts: one to be signed by the person in charge of the device or the party producing the record, and another by an expert. This two-part certificate is designed to strengthen the reliability of digital evidence.

The case law on certificates has evolved significantly. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Supreme Court admitted call records without strict insistence on a certificate. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the Court overruled that approach and held that a certificate under Section 65B was mandatory for secondary electronic evidence. In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), a smaller bench relaxed this requirement, creating confusion.

The confusion was resolved in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020). A three-judge bench held that the certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, overruling Shafhi Mohammad. The Court also held that the certificate is not required if the original device itself is produced in court as primary evidence. It further clarified that the certificate can be produced at a later stage of the trial, provided it does not cause prejudice to the accused. This judgment remains the leading authority, and its principles apply to Section 63 of the BSA.

Now let us look at WhatsApp messages specifically. Courts accept WhatsApp chats as evidence, but they assess their reliability carefully. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP (2020), the Supreme Court observed that the evidentiary value of WhatsApp messages is a matter to be determined at trial, and that unauthenticated messages carry limited weight on their own. This means simply printing a screenshot is not enough; the chat must be properly proved.

To prove a WhatsApp chat, three things are usually required. First, the authenticity of the content, showing that the messages were not edited or fabricated. Second, attribution, showing that the messages were actually sent by the person concerned, typically by linking the phone number to that person through subscriber records and the device. Third, proper certification under Section 63 of the BSA if copies are used. Forensic examination of the phone often provides the strongest proof on all three points.

Forensic examination is increasingly central to such cases. Investigating agencies extract data from phones using forensic tools, which can recover chats, voice notes, images, and even deleted messages. The forensic report usually records hash values, which are digital fingerprints that show whether the data has been altered. Opinions of experts in electronic evidence are relevant under Section 39 of the BSA, and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for notified Examiners of Electronic Evidence.

WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption has practical consequences. WhatsApp generally does not store the content of messages on its servers in readable form, so the content usually has to be obtained from the devices of the sender or recipient. Investigating agencies can request certain account information or metadata from the platform through lawful processes. Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021, which deals with identifying the first originator of messages, has been challenged by WhatsApp before the Delhi High Court. This is why the physical devices themselves remain so important.

Now let us look at call detail records, commonly called CDRs. A CDR shows which numbers called each other, when, for how long, and often which mobile tower the phone was connected to. CDRs are routinely used to establish contact between accused persons, to show communication around the time of an offence, and to place a phone in a general location. They are obtained from telecom service providers, usually through a written requisition from the police under Section 94 of the BNSS (formerly Section 91 CrPC).

CDRs must also be properly proved. They are secondary electronic evidence, so they generally require a certificate under Section 63 of the BSA from the telecom company's nodal officer or another responsible official. The nodal officer may be examined as a witness to explain how the records were generated and maintained. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011), the Supreme Court relied on call records as part of the evidence, while emphasising that such evidence must be properly proved.

Courts recognise the limits of CDRs. A call record shows that a particular SIM was used, not necessarily who was holding the phone. Tower location data shows that a phone was within the coverage area of a tower, which may extend over a wide area, not its exact location. So CDRs are usually treated as corroborative circumstantial evidence rather than conclusive proof. They are most powerful when combined with other evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, CCTV footage, or forensic findings.

Time matters with CDRs because telecom operators retain them only for a limited period under their licence conditions. If you need CDRs to prove an alibi or establish contact, act quickly. Complainants should ask the police to requisition the records promptly. Accused persons can ask the court to direct preservation and production of CDRs that may support their defence. Courts have power to summon documents and records under Section 94 of the BNSS and to summon material witnesses under Section 348 (formerly Section 311 CrPC).

Digital evidence often decides criminal cases today, and how it is handled from the first day can make or break your position. For guidance on preserving, certifying, or challenging chats and call records, you can turn to our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice. If your case is already before the police or court, experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice can handle forensic issues, certificates, and cross-examination of technical witnesses. You may also consult our panel of retired judges, who have assessed digital evidence in many trials and work alongside our criminal lawyers to evaluate its strength in your case.

Let us now look at how electronic evidence is collected during investigation. The police may seize phones and devices during searches. Under Section 105 of the BNSS, the process of search and seizure, including preparation of the list of seized items, must be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably on a mobile phone, and the recording forwarded to the Magistrate. This new requirement strengthens the reliability of seizures and helps prevent allegations of planting or tampering.

Privacy concerns arise when phones are seized. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Under Article 20(3), an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves, and in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court held that involuntary narco-analysis and similar tests violate this right. Whether an accused can be compelled to disclose passwords or unlock devices has been considered by some High Courts, including the Karnataka High Court in Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka (2021), and the issue remains legally developing.

Interception of communications is subject to strict rules. Under Section 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and Section 69 of the IT Act, only authorised government agencies can intercept communications, following prescribed procedures. In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court laid down safeguards for phone tapping. Evidence obtained through interception must comply with these procedures, and unlawful interception can itself be an offence.

What about messages recorded or screenshotted by private individuals? Indian courts generally consider evidence based on relevance, even if obtained without the other person's knowledge, as reflected in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973). In matrimonial proceedings, the Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025) held that secretly recorded spousal conversations can be admissible. However, gathering evidence through hacking or spyware may expose the person to liability under Sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act, even if the evidence itself is admitted.

Chats can contain admissions, which are particularly significant. Under the BSA, admissions by a party are relevant and can be proved against them. Messages in which an accused acknowledges an act, apologises for it, or makes threats can be powerful evidence. However, courts examine the context carefully. Statements made to friends in chats may also be treated as extra-judicial confessions, which, as the Supreme Court held in Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012), are weak evidence and require careful scrutiny.

Now let me explain how the defence can challenge such evidence. The defence can argue that the required certificate under Section 63 is absent or defective, that the chain of custody of the device was broken, that the screenshots were edited or fabricated, that the phone number does not belong to the accused, or that someone else had access to the device. With the growing availability of editing tools and AI-generated content, courts are increasingly alert to the possibility of manipulated digital material, and expert analysis can be decisive.

The accused also has rights to access the digital evidence. Under Section 230 of the BNSS (formerly Section 207 CrPC), the accused is entitled to copies of the police report and documents relied upon, including electronic records. Where the volume is large, courts may permit inspection. The accused can request copies of forensic reports, hash values, and extraction reports, and can seek independent expert examination where justified.

For complainants and victims, practical steps can make digital evidence much stronger. Do not delete chats or call logs, even if they are distressing. Use WhatsApp's "export chat" feature to save complete conversations, and take screenshots that clearly show the sender's number, date, and time. Keep the original phone safe and avoid factory resetting it. Hand over the device to the police when asked, and ensure the seizure is properly documented. Ask your lawyer to help prepare the certificate under Section 63 of the BSA.

For accused persons, a careful approach is equally important. Do not delete messages or destroy devices after learning of a complaint, because that may amount to causing disappearance of evidence under Section 238 of the BNS (formerly Section 201 IPC). Preserve messages and call records that support your version, such as proof of your whereabouts or the context of conversations. Seek legal advice before handing over passwords or giving statements about digital evidence.

Constitutional rights apply throughout. Article 21 guarantees a fair investigation and trial, and digital evidence must be collected and used in a manner consistent with that guarantee. Article 20(3) protects the accused from self-incrimination. Article 14 ensures equal treatment. Courts balance the value of digital evidence in uncovering the truth against these fundamental protections.

Let me summarise the position. WhatsApp messages, voice notes, and call detail records are admissible as evidence under the BSA, which recognises electronic records as documents. The original device can be produced as primary evidence, while copies require a certificate under Section 63, as held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. Courts examine authenticity, attribution, and chain of custody closely, and CDRs are usually corroborative rather than conclusive. Both sides can strengthen or challenge digital evidence through forensic analysis, proper certification, and careful cross-examination.

In conclusion, WhatsApp messages as evidence can be decisive in a criminal case, but only when they are properly preserved, certified, and connected to the right person. The BSA and the Supreme Court's judgments have created a clear framework that rewards careful handling and exposes unreliable material. Whether you are a complainant or an accused, preserve your devices, act quickly to secure call records, and take expert legal advice early. With the right approach, WhatsApp messages as evidence and call records can help the court reach the truth, and understanding how WhatsApp messages as evidence are tested will help you protect your rights.