Legal information notice: this article provides general information and isn't a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer.
You’re involved in a dispute — matrimonial, employment, a financial disagreement, or a criminal complaint — and WhatsApp chats are central to your case. Many people assume a screenshot is enough to prove their point in court. It usually isn’t. Here’s exactly what Indian law requires for WhatsApp chats (and other electronic evidence) to actually be admissible.
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) governs electronic evidence in India, having replaced Section 65B of the old Indian Evidence Act with effect from 1 July 2024. Any electronic record — a WhatsApp message, an email, a call recording, a CCTV clip, a bank server log — must generally be accompanied by a specific certificate to be admissible as evidence, regardless of how genuine or relevant it appears on its face.
A screenshot can be edited, taken out of context, or fabricated relatively easily, which is exactly why courts require more than the image itself. Under Section 63(4), the certificate must generally be signed both by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the device the message came from, and by a technical expert where an expert examination has been carried out — a step up from the single-signatory certificate that applied under the old Section 65B.
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Supreme Court held that a certificate under this provision is mandatory, not optional — electronic evidence submitted without it has no evidentiary value, regardless of how relevant or authentic it may appear. This principle carries forward directly under Section 63, BSA.
Use WhatsApp’s own “Export Chat” feature to generate the complete, unaltered conversation file, ideally including media — this is a fundamentally stronger starting point than individual screenshots, which are easy to challenge as selective or edited.
A hash (commonly SHA-256) is a unique digital fingerprint of the exported file — if even one character changes, the hash changes completely, giving you verifiable proof the file wasn’t tampered with after export.
This typically requires two components: a declaration from the person who owns/operates the device (Part A) and, where a technical/forensic examination was carried out, a signed statement from the expert who conducted it (Part B) — a lawyer or forensic expert can guide you through preparing this correctly.
The exported chat, the hash value, and the signed certificate are submitted together as part of your evidence in the relevant proceeding — incomplete or missing certification is one of the most common reasons electronic evidence gets excluded.
The opposing side can (and often will) challenge the chain of custody, the device’s integrity, or whether the certificate was properly executed — having your documentation complete and consistent from the start matters enormously here.
A distinction that trips up a lot of people: the certificate requirement under Section 63 exists to establish that the electronic record is what it claims to be and hasn’t been tampered with — it says nothing about whether the content of the message is true or relevant to your case. Even a properly certified WhatsApp chat can still be challenged on its substance (context, meaning, who actually sent it from a shared device) during the trial itself. Certification gets your evidence in the door; it doesn’t win the argument on its own.
This matters especially in matrimonial and family law matters, where WhatsApp chats are increasingly used as evidence of cruelty, infidelity, or threats. If you’re in this situation, coordinate the certification process with your lawyer early — retroactively obtaining a proper Section 63 certificate for evidence you’ve already been informally relying on for months is far harder than doing it correctly from the point you first identify the relevant chats.
If your phone or the relevant device is no longer in your possession, or you’re relying on a chat from someone else’s device (a shared family phone, for instance), the certification process becomes more complex and typically requires a forensic expert’s involvement from the outset — this is a scenario where professional help early on saves significant difficulty later.
| Format | Admissibility |
|---|---|
| Plain screenshot | Weak — easily challenged, generally insufficient alone |
| Full chat export, uncertified | Better, but still incomplete without the Section 63 certificate |
| Export + hash + Section 63 certificate | Strong — meets the mandatory legal standard for admissibility |
The certified electronic evidence is submitted as part of your case file in whichever court or tribunal is hearing your matter — family court, criminal court, or civil court — alongside your other pleadings and evidence.
Exporting a chat and generating a hash value are free. A forensic expert’s fee for the technical certification component varies based on complexity, and a lawyer’s fee for guiding the overall process is separate.
The export and hash-generation steps can be done yourself. Obtaining a properly executed Section 63 certificate — especially the expert component — and presenting the evidence correctly in court is best handled with a lawyer, given how strictly courts apply the mandatory certificate requirement.
Need professional legal help with this?
Find a Lawyer on VidyodayIf these chats are part of a domestic violence or matrimonial matter, see our guides on filing a domestic violence complaint and contested divorce, where this kind of evidence often plays a central role.
No — while it might seem like the most direct proof, courts require the formal certification process under Section 63 for the content to be treated as valid evidence, not simply viewed informally.
Export and preserve chats as early as possible once you know they’re relevant — if deletion has already happened, a forensic expert may still be able to recover data in some cases, though this isn’t guaranteed.
The same Section 63 certification requirement applies to any electronic record — SMS, email, Instagram DMs, call recordings — not just WhatsApp specifically.
Generally, the person who owns or has lawful control over the device from which the electronic record originated — often you, if it’s your own phone.
Only where a technical examination has actually been undertaken — for straightforward exports, the device-owner’s certificate component may suffice, but courts increasingly expect thorough certification given how easily digital content can be manipulated.
Yes — messages you received are still relevant evidence, and the same certification principles apply regardless of whether you’re the sender or recipient.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been replaced by Section 63 of the BSA effective 1 July 2024, with a stricter dual-signatory requirement — going forward, new evidence needs to meet the current Section 63 standard.
Yes — the same principles apply to any electronic record, including voice messages and call logs, provided they’re properly exported, preserved, and certified.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a lawyer for guidance specific to your case, particularly before relying on electronic evidence in court proceedings.
