WhatsApp Not Valid Mode of Service as Per Supreme Court Rules: Supreme Court Registrar

WhatsApp Not Valid Mode of Service as Per Supreme Court Rules: Supreme Court Registrar

A Registrar Court at the Supreme Court said that service of notice on a party via instant messaging platform WhatsApp is not valid.

"As per affidavit of dasti service, the notice is served on the sole respondent through 'WhatsApp,' which is not a valid mode of service as per (Supreme Court rules), Registrar Pavanesh D said while ordering fresh notice in a transfer petition at admission stage.

The recent development flagged considering several High Courts permitting electronic service of notices, including via WhatsApp.

The Rohini Court in Delhi in 2017, accepted WhatsApp blue double-tick as receipt proof of notice on the Respondents. The case concerned an Appeal filed by a Model Town resident, seeking an injunction against his son and daughter-in-law, her parents and her friend from "trespassing into the suit property."

During the hearing, the Court had asked the Appellant to send a notice to all five Respondents, and had clarified that the notices can be served via WhatsApp, considering the urgency of the situation. The Appellant had thereafter taken color printouts of the chats, with the blue-ticks visible.

Following which these were submitted to the Court, which was quoted as saying, "these defendants, thus, certainly have acquired knowledge of the summons and the hearing today." The Judge however, ordered that the Respondents be served again.

The Bombay High Court by its single judge Justice GS Patel in the case of In SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt Ltd vs. Rohidas Jadhav (2018), had accepted service of notice in an execution application through WhatsApp. It had found that notice served in the form of a PDF file was not only delivered, but the attachment was opened as well.

Justice Patel stated, "for the purposes of service of Notice under Order XXI Rule 22, I will accept this. I do so because the icon indicators clearly show that not only was the message and its attachment delivered to the Respondent's number but that both were opened."

Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in the case of Tata Sons Limited and Ors vs John Doe, Justice Rajiv Sahai allowed the Plaintiff in a defamation suit to serve the summons on one of the defendants through WhatsApp, text message and email.

"The soul of the service is to have the knowledge of the proceedings to the defendant or the contesting party," the Bombay High Court had observed in Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta and others vs. M/s. Bendale Brothers while discussing modern ways of service like courier, email, and WhatsApp.

The Apex Court in July 2020, amid difficulties in physical service of summons due to nation-wide lockdown and COVID-19 pandemic, had allowed the service of notices, summons and pleadings etc. via WhatsApp in addition to email.

It had stated, "service of notices, summons and pleadings etc. have not been possible during the period of lockdown because this involves visits to post offices, courier companies or physical delivery of notices, summons and pleadings. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct that such services of all the above may be affected by e-mail, FAX, commonly used instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. However, if a if a party intends to effect service by means of said instant messaging services, we direct that in addition thereto, the party must also effect service of the same document/documents by e-mail, simultaneously on the same date."