WhatsApp legal notices valid in court — the ruling

An execution-stage notice had to reach the respondent. The notice was sent to his WhatsApp number and email; the message and its attachment showed delivered — and opened. When he did not appear, the question was whether that electronic service satisfied the rule requiring notice before the court proceeds.

Justice Gautam Patel accepted it:

The logic is evidence-led: the icon indicators (double ticks showing delivery; blue ticks showing the message and PDF were opened) did the work a signed AD card does for post. The full decision is downloadable below.

SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt Ltd Versus Rohidas Jadhav — download the decision

• The IT Act, 2000 recognised electronic records and communication; since then, emails and electronic messages have been admissible in evidence.
• Since 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs evidence in place of the old Evidence Act — and it carries forward the treatment of electronic records as evidence.
• Court practice had already moved: e-filing, virtual hearings, and email communication with courts normalised electronic service well before WhatsApp notices reached the question directly.
• What the ruling adds is the service point: not just that a chat is admissible, but that sending the notice this way can itself satisfy a service-of-notice requirement.

• Not every WhatsApp message is a legal notice. The message must be the notice — properly worded, sent to the right person, and supported by proof of delivery.
• The number must be shown to be the recipient's (taken from records, pleadings or their own prior use). A number you merely believe is theirs is weak service.
• Read receipts strengthen service but a disabled read-receipt setting does not defeat it — delivery evidence plus the number's provenance can still suffice; courts look at the whole picture.
• Some statutes still prescribe a specific mode of service (public notice by newspaper publication, for example) — WhatsApp works where the rule does not mandate one exclusive mode.

1. Send from your number, keep the **chat export** (not just screenshots) — chat export carries timestamps and metadata.
2. Capture the **delivery/read indicators** and the recipient's profile; ideally record the number's source (bill, contract, earlier chat).
3. For court use, print with the phone number visible, and be ready with the **original device** — electronic evidence is proved from the source, not the printout alone.
4. Pair electronic service with an email to the same person and, where stakes are high, retain postal service in parallel.

Information Commissions and PIOs increasingly communicate by email and portal; several State Information Commissions accept appeal copies by email. The same logic — electronic service with proof — is what supports filing and receiving RTI documents digitally. When you serve an RTI first appeal by email where allowed, keep the delivery proof the same way this case did.

You can, but belt-and-braces wins: WhatsApp + email + registered post in parallel. Each is service-evidence; together they are unanswerable.

Yes — as electronic records, proved with the device/metadata. Screenshots alone are weaker; the chat export and original device are what courts expect.

They mattered here: they showed the message and attachment were opened. Delivery ticks alone may still suffice depending on facts.

The principle — electronic service with proof satisfies notice requirements where no exclusive mode is prescribed — applies across civil notices.

• SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt Ltd v. Rohidas Jadhav, Bombay High Court (Justice Gautam Patel) — decision PDF hosted above.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI Rule 22.
• Information Technology Act, 2000; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (in force 1 July 2024).

Last reviewed: 27 August 2026. Ruling, judge and quote re-checked against the hosted decision PDF; statutory references to the IT Act and BSA 2023 in-force date verified.