Supreme Court Ruling on Service of Notices Through WhatsApp: Clarifying Legal Protocols for Police

NEW DELHI: In a major order, India's Supreme Court highlighted that if issued through digital mode like WhatsApp then the very notification addressed to any convicted person is no longer legal and valid. This appeal comes on the back of notices issued under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and Section 35 of the Bharat National Security and Surveillance, Act, 2023.

The apex court has ordered that all states and union territories must issue Standing Orders to their respective police departments, requiring notices under the provisions of these very sections to be served only through the prescribed modes under the CrPC and BNSS, 2023.

The bench, consisting of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, made it explicitly clear that the service of notices through platforms like WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot substitute the formal service methods recognized by law. This directive aims to safeguard the integrity of legal procedures and ensure that notices are served in a manner consistent with established legal norms. The Court's view further strengthens the position that the service of legal documents must follow traditional, recognized methods, such as personal delivery or through other legal service channels, to ensure proper notification and accountability.

The issue came to light during a hearing in which senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing as amicus curiae (friend of the court), pointed out that notices were being sent to accused persons through WhatsApp but those notices were not able to elicit the desired response. Luthra brought attention to the fact that, if notices issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC are delivered electronically, the accused appears before the officers who investigated. No further action has been taken on such irregularity. Such procedure and legality are in question against serving through a digital platform while serious matters involve legal procedure.

The moot contention further was that the Standing Order issued by the DGP, Haryana, permitted the effect of notices to be issued even through electronic modes such as WhatsApp, e-mail, or SMS. In this regard, the Court felt this guideline was deficient as it seemed to permit deviation from statutorily prescribed modalities for service of notices.

The other judgments relied on by Luthra were prior decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022). It was observed by the Delhi High Court that the notices issued through WhatsApp or other electronic modes are not recognized under Section 41-A of the CrPC. The Court had then clearly stated that such modes of service did not fit into the mandate of the CrPC, which specifies the procedures applicable for giving or serving a notice under Chapter VI. It decided notices could be served only within the mandate of law made by the Court and could not be considered by electronic means as proposed by the petitioner.

In addition, Luthra pointed out Section 532 of the BNSS, 2023 which deals with the conducting of trials and proceedings through electronic communication and audio-video means. The exemption under this provision does not include the service of notices that are granted under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023. As a result, while the hearings can be conducted in electronic modes, notices cannot be served as strictly held traditional modes are required for important legal procedures.

ALSO READ:

ALSO WATCH: