Courts today are dealing more and more with digital material as evidence—WhatsApp chats, Gmail threads, cloud data, server logs and screenshots. Communication once considered casual or informal is now often central to disputes in courts, from civil suits to criminal trials. But what determines whether such content can be used in court? Not everything sent or received online qualifies as legal proof. The law has developed standards for the admissibility of digital evidence, and these standards are both strict and evolving.
Digital evidence is fundamentally different from traditional forms of evidence. Unlike physical documents or objects, electronic records can be easily manipulated, deleted, or forged. A simple screenshot of a WhatsApp chat, for example, can be edited with minimal effort. An email header can be spoofed. The challenge before courts is to ensure that the evidence presented is authentic, reliable and free from tampering.
In India, the law governing digital evidence is primarily found in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 65B. This section was inserted to deal with the complexities of electronic records. According to it, an electronic record—when presented in a secondary form such as a printout, screenshot or CD—must be accompanied by a certificate. This certificate, commonly called a Section 65B certificate, must contain details of the device used to create the record, the manner in which it was produced, and confirmation that it is an accurate and unaltered copy.
The importance of this requirement was made clear by the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020). The Court ruled that a certificate under Section 65B is mandatory unless the original electronic device is physically produced in court. Without the certificate, the electronic record is inadmissible as evidence. This ruling settled earlier confusion created by differing High Court interpretations.
WhatsApp messages are a common form of evidence. Parties frequently submit chat screenshots to prove everything from business dealings to threats, admissions, or consent. But producing a screenshot is not enough. Courts need more than just the visible content. They require proof of how the message was obtained, who sent it, when it was sent, and whether it has been altered. In contested cases, courts may insist on producing the actual phone or device from which the chat originated. Metadata—such as timestamps, contact names, and device logs—can also help establish the authenticity of the chat.
Attribution is another issue. Just because a message was sent from a particular phone number or email ID does not automatically prove who sent it. Phones can be shared, SIM cards can be borrowed, and email accounts can be hacked. The law requires that the sender be clearly linked to the content. If someone denies sending a message, the burden shifts to the party relying on the message to prove authorship—either through digital forensics or other supporting evidence like call records, witness statements, or surrounding conduct.
Gmail and other email services are also frequently relied upon. Emails may contain contract terms, admissions, or communications that establish key facts in a case. Courts treat emails as electronic records, and their admissibility is governed by the same standards as other digital content. An email submitted as evidence must either be printed directly from the server or device and certified under Section 65B, or the original must be produced. Courts may also examine the email’s header, IP information and server logs to ensure that it was actually sent and received at the claimed time.
In both WhatsApp and Gmail cases, courts often face the problem of forged or fabricated material. In civil disputes, it’s not uncommon for parties to submit fake messages or edited conversations. This risk has made courts cautious. They may require expert testimony or forensic reports to confirm the authenticity of the messages. Tools like hash values and digital signatures can help confirm the integrity of a file. If the chain of custody is not clear, or if the origin of the message is questionable, courts may refuse to rely on it altogether.
In criminal matters, the standards are even stricter. Police often rely on WhatsApp chats and email records to establish intent, conspiracy or communication between accused persons. But courts insist that such evidence be collected properly, with a clear chain of custody. Investigating officers are required to extract data using proper forensic tools and preserve the device. Any failure to do so can render the evidence unreliable.
Another complication arises when evidence is deleted. People often delete incriminating messages before or after a crime. However, with the right tools, deleted messages can sometimes be recovered from device backups or servers. Courts are willing to consider such recovered data, but only if its source and accuracy can be clearly established.
Matrimonial cases frequently involve digital evidence too. Allegations of abuse, dowry demands, or infidelity are increasingly supported by WhatsApp messages or emails. In such cases, courts balance privacy with probative value. If a message is private but relevant to the issue, courts may admit it. But if the evidence is obtained by illegal surveillance or without consent, it may be excluded. This is particularly true after the Supreme Court recognised the fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
That said, courts have sometimes relaxed the requirement of Section 65B certificates if both parties admit to the content. For example, if neither side disputes a WhatsApp conversation, the court may accept it as valid without further technical proof. But this is an exception, not the rule. In most contested matters, courts require strict proof of authenticity and compliance with the law.
Digital evidence is not inherently unreliable—but it is fragile. It must be handled with care and presented with rigour. Lawyers, investigators and litigants must understand the importance of proper collection, preservation, and certification. Simply forwarding a message or submitting a screenshot is not enough. The law demands that the evidence be authentic, unaltered, relevant and legally obtained.
The future of litigation lies in digital trails. As courts continue to adapt, the demand for accurate and credible electronic records will only grow. WhatsApp and Gmail may seem like casual platforms, but once in court, their content must meet the highest standards of legal scrutiny.
Contributed by Vaibhav Goyal- Intern