#WhatsApp evidence

The Securities Appellate Tribunal ruled that personal WhatsApp messages of a former employee cannot be used to impose liability on a registered investment adviser firm, emphasizing that penalties under the SEBI Act must be strictly proportionate to the adviser’s own conduct. This sets a critical precedent for digital evidence attribution and limits regulatory overreach in adviser misconduct cases.

MP High Court rules that anticipatory bail under Section 69 BNS can be granted without custodial interrogation if the relationship was consensual, prolonged, and digital evidence (WhatsApp chats, photographs) corroborates the absence of deceit. The ruling emphasizes proportionality, rejecting mechanical detention where no coercion or fraud is established.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that electronic evidence from personal devices, including WhatsApp chats, emails, and digital photographs, can be admitted under Section 65B of the Evidence Act with a self-certificate alone, provided it meets statutory requirements. This clarifies a critical procedural hurdle in family law and other litigation, eliminating the need for third-party certification for evidence generated from personal devices.

The ITAT Kolkata ruled that when sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be disallowed based solely on uncorroborated WhatsApp chats or suspicions of shell company links. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers facing revenue scrutiny, reinforcing that mere association with flagged entities is insufficient without concrete, corroborated evidence of fabrication.

NCLAT rules that unverified WhatsApp screenshots and unfiled lab reports cannot establish a pre-existing dispute under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The ruling clarifies that operational creditors must provide credible, documented evidence to defeat insolvency petitions, impacting debt recovery strategies for businesses.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that mere possession of WhatsApp messages or screenshots is insufficient to prove child pornography charges without authenticating source, intent, and chain of custody.