Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules on WhatsApp Chats: Admissible as Evidence in Family Courts Despite Privacy Concerns

The High Court, which is located in the city of Gwalior, heard the case of a significant legal issue recently that revolved around the very significant question of whether messages sent on the popular messaging platform of WhatsApp can ever be used as a solid piece of evidence in a court of law.

To phrase it even more specifically, the aforementioned issue was presented before the court as an issue of dispute that occurred between two individuals who were in a wedded relationship as husband and wife. In this case, which has been designated as M.P. No. 3395/2023, the wife had challenged the order that was passed by a family court, wherein her husband had been allowed to use their WhatsApp exchanges as supporting evidence against her in his ongoing divorce petition.

It is especially remarkable and noteworthy that both these lovely events had taken place within the same calendar year, and thus it was a year of monumental significance, change, and joy for them as a couple. Regarding the facts, this is the background of the case.

The husband filed a divorce petition in accordance with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition included charges of violence and adultery. His claim was that he had placed a customized application on his wife’s phone, which would automatically relay her WhatsApp communications to his device. He claimed that this program would do this automatically.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

He believed these telephone conversations could demonstrate her extramarital affair. These allegations were denied by the wife, who also said that she was entitled to the recovery of conjugal rights under the circumstances. When the husband was seeking to offer the WhatsApp chats as evidence, the wife objected to the presentation by arguing that they were obtained in an unlawful manner and that they violated her right to privacy. She also stated that the husband had violated her right to privacy. On the other side, the Family Court did not have any issues with the spouse providing evidence of these chats.

It was said by the counsel representing the wife that the method in which the husband obtained the chats without her consent was not only illegal but also a violation of her right to privacy. The attorney presented this argument. To provide evidence in support of their argument that proof gathered in violation of the law ought to be regarded as inadmissible, they resorted to specific sections of the Information Technology Act.

The Indian Facts Act frequently prohibits the introduction of such material in court. Moreover, they cited decisions from other high courts that bolstered the possibility of accepting such information as evidence. they emphasized these opinions.

The High Court focused its investigation on a number of significant legal principles and precedents. During the course of the discussion, it was noted that the Family Courts law of 1984 was enacted to simplify the requirements for evidence and procedure in the context of family disputes. The Act prioritized conciliation and socially desirable results over stringent evidential requirements.

It is possible for the court to hear any material that contributes to the resolution of a dispute, regardless of whether or not the information is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, because this Act has an exception that permits the court to hear such information.

In accordance with this Act, Section 14 makes provision for this exemption. Section 20 grants the Family Courts Act an additional influence that surpasses all others. The court acknowledged that this clause relaxes the stringent rules for admitting evidence, especially concerning electronic evidence, and that the Family Court has the authority to accept or reject evidence that aids in the efficient resolution of marital conflicts. We implemented this provision to simplify the decision-making process. Denying documents solely because they don’t comply with the Evidence Act would violate the spirit of Section 14, which the section was meant to protect.

Additionally, the court considered the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 in its decision-making process. It was brought to everyone’s attention that while Section 5 deals with relevant facts, Article 122 permits the disclosure of communications between married couples in the event that they are in disagreement with one another. The court conducted a comprehensive examination of the right to privacy as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court conducted this investigation. This is an additional point of importance. When privacy conflicts with other rights, like the right to a fair trial, it may have to be sacrificed. We do this to enhance the efficiency of public justice administration.

The court argued that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act would be rendered ineffective if evidence were to be removed in a Family Court on the basis of an argument that it would violate the individual’s right to privacy.

In its conclusion, the High Court made the observation that the most important consideration that is taken into account when deciding whether or not a case is accepted in Family Courts is its relevancy. Evidence, if it was substantial, should be received regardless of how it was gathered, regardless of the circumstances, according to a declaration that was made to assure a fair trial and public justice.

The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to make the WhatsApp conversations public. It said to use such evidence carefully and to check its legality and accuracy against other evidence.