Self-Certification for WhatsApp Chats by Party is Legally Admissible

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, in X v. Y (2026), set aside an order of the trial Court that had refused to permit the marking of electronic records — including WhatsApp status screenshots, email prints, digital photographs, and bank statements — on the ground that the petitioner had not produced a certificate from a "proper authority." 

• The Court held that a self-certificate issued by a party who is in lawful control and possession of the device is legally valid and admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), provided it satisfies the statutory requirements prescribed under the provision.

What was the Background of X v.  Y (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose out of divorce proceedings instituted by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein the petitioner sought to mark several electronic records as exhibits during trial. 
• The petitioner filed a self-certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act along with an application to mark WhatsApp status screenshots, email prints, digital photographs, an HP DVD, bank statements, and other electronic records as exhibits. 
• While the trial Court allowed the applications to receive and mark additional documents, it refused to permit the marking of the electronic records, holding that a certificate under Section 65B must be issued by a "proper authority" and not by the party themselves. 
• The petitioner challenged this order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, contending that the trial Court had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the provision and that a self-certificate by a person in lawful possession of the device is expressly recognised under Section 65B(4).

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Validity of Self-Certification: The Court held that a self-certificate furnished by the petitioner under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 BSA) is legally admissible and generally sufficient for WhatsApp messages or call recordings present on the party's own phone, provided it complies with the statutory requirements under the provision. 
• On the Error of the Trial Court: The Court held that the trial Court had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that Section 65B mandates a certificate only from a "proper authority" and not from the person possessing or operating the device. The Court clarified that such a certificate can also be issued by a person in lawful control of the device, including a mobile phone. 
• On the Requirements of the Certificate: The Court held that the self-certificate must — identify the electronic record being produced (such as an email, video, or document); describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; provide details of the device involved in the production of the record; and state that the device was operating properly, or that any malfunction did not affect the accuracy of the record. 
• On the Precedent in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar: The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020), which affirmed that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence, but that such a certificate may be issued by a person in "lawful control" of the device — not exclusively by an official authority. 
• On the Directions to the Trial Court: The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial Court to examine the self-certificate filed by the petitioner and permit the marking of the electronic records if it satisfied the requirements under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.

What is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is the successor to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It governs the conditions under which electronic records are admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. 

Key Sub-sections: 

• Section 63(1) — Any computer output (information printed, stored, recorded, or copied in any electronic form) is deemed a document and is admissible without production of the original, if the prescribed conditions are satisfied. BSA expands this to include semiconductor memory, communication devices, and any electronic form of storage — broader than the IEA's reference to only optical/magnetic media produced by a computer. 
• Section 63(2) — Lays down four conditions: the output was produced during regular use of the device; information was regularly fed in the ordinary course of activities; the device was operating properly throughout; and the information in the record is derived from data fed in the ordinary course. 
• Section 63(3) — Where multiple devices are used over a period, they are treated as a single computer. BSA replaces the IEA's formulation (combinations/succession of computers) with a more modern framework covering standalone mode, computer systems, networks, cloud resources, and intermediaries. 
• Section 63(4) — A certificate must be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance of admission. It must identify the record, describe its production, give device particulars, and be signed by the person in charge of the device or relevant activities. BSA adds two changes: the certificate must now be submitted at each instance of admission (not just once), and an expert's certificate is also recognised — unlike the IEA which only recognised a person in responsible official position.