In short. Emails, WhatsApp chats and other digital records are electronic evidence under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). If you're relying on a printout, you'll usually prove it with a certificate in the form given in the BSA Schedule. The person in charge of the device signs Part A. An expert signs Part B and gives the hash value. In a commercial suit, these records go in with the plaint, along with a declaration under Order XI Rule 6 CPC. First job: keep the original phone, mailbox and backups safe before anything goes missing.
Is this your situation?
- Your customer fixed the rate and confirmed every order on WhatsApp. Nobody ever signed a contract.
- The clearest admission of the debt came from the other side's director, on his personal Gmail, not the company ID.
- You've got screenshots on your laptop. The phone they came from? Your sales manager took it when he left.
- Your lawyer keeps asking for a "Section 63 certificate" or a "65B certificate", and nobody in your office knows who's supposed to sign it.
- The defendant's reply says your chats are fabricated and edited.
- Your suit went in before July 2024, and now you're hearing the evidence law changed midway.
The short answer: the record, the certificate and the declaration go in together
In a commercial court, emails and WhatsApp chats are proved as electronic records. Most clients bring a printout, a screenshot or an exported file. The law calls that computer output. The usual way to get it admitted is a certificate under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), in the format set out in the Schedule to the Act. It comes in two parts. Part A is signed by whoever is in charge of the phone, computer or account. Part B is signed by an expert and records the hash value of the data.
Commercial suits ask for one more thing. Under Order XI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a party relying on electronic records has to file a declaration on oath. It sets out who the parties to the record are, how and when it was made, where it's stored and who controls that storage. All of this is filed with the plaint or the written statement. Leave a document out at that stage and you may not get it in later.
Don't expect paperwork to rescue a weak chat. It won't. The certificate only gets the record through the door. What it proves depends on who sent it, what it actually says, and whether it matches your invoices and bank entries. Below we go through each requirement, how chats and emails are handled in practice, what to do when the other side shouts forgery, and which law applies if your suit was filed before 1 July 2024.
What the law actually says
Sections 2(1)(d), 57 and 61, BSA
A 'document' now includes electronic and digital records. The illustrations even mention emails, server logs, messages on devices and voice mail. The Explanations to Section 57 treat some electronic records as primary evidence, including one produced from proper custody, unless it's disputed. And Section 61 says nobody can refuse an electronic record just because it's electronic. Subject to Section 63, it carries the same legal effect as a paper document.
Sections 62 and 63, BSA (old Sections 65A and 65B, Evidence Act)
Section 63 is where the contents of electronic records get proved. Computer output (printouts, copies on a pen drive or any other media) counts as a document if the conditions in Section 63(2) are met. Roughly: the device was regularly used for that activity, the information went in during the ordinary course, the device was working properly, and the output reproduces what went in. Then Section 63(4). It needs a certificate in the Schedule format, signed by the person in charge of the device or the activity and by an expert, submitted with the record every time it's tendered.
Section 90, BSA (old Section 88A)
The court may presume that an email sent through a mail server matches what was typed into the sender's computer. That's all. There's no presumption about who sent it. So the presumption helps the content, but you still have to prove the sender.
Order XI Rules 4 and 6, CPC (as amended for commercial suits)
Under Rule 6, printouts are enough for disclosure. But you have to give a declaration on oath covering the parties to the record, how and by whom it was produced, the dates and times it was made, stored, sent or received, its source, who owns and controls the email account or computer resource, what the deponent personally knows, that the device worked properly, and that the copy came from the original. The court can ask for more, like metadata or logs. Rule 4 makes each side admit or deny the other's documents with reasons. A bare, unsupported denial isn't treated as a denial.
Section 170, BSA
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stands repealed from 1 July 2024. But any trial, proceeding or appeal pending just before that date carries on under the old Act. That's why a suit filed before July 2024 may still need a Section 65B certificate, while one filed after needs a certificate under Section 63.
What does electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA require?
If you're relying on a copy, Section 63 BSA wants two things. First, the copy has to come from a device or system that was working normally, in the ordinary course of things. Second, you need a certificate saying so, in the prescribed form. The first is a question of fact. The second is a document you prepare and file with the record. Skip it and the court can refuse to look at the printout.
Part A of the Schedule certificate is filled in by the party, or whoever is in charge of the device. It identifies the record and the device: make and model, serial number, IMEI for a phone, MAC address, or the account or cloud ID, whichever applies. It says the device was in regular use and working properly, and that the output is a true reproduction. Part B is the expert's part. It records the hash value of the electronic record, worked out with an algorithm such as SHA-256, and confirms the output came from the device described.
What's a hash value? A string of letters and numbers calculated from the data itself. Change one character in the chat export, or one pixel in a screenshot, and the hash changes. So the court can check, months later, that the file in front of it is the file that was extracted. When the Supreme Court upheld Section 63(4) in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (2026), it called the hash an electronic fingerprint. Good description.
The certificate goes with the record 'at each instance' it's tendered. In practice we prepare one certificate per set of records. One WhatsApp chat export, say, or one mailbox's emails on a particular topic. It's filed alongside those records.
Who signs the certificate, and who counts as an expert?
Part A gets signed by the person who controls the device or account. That might be the director whose phone has the chat, the proprietor whose Gmail sent the emails, or the IT manager who runs the company's mail server. In a company, pick someone who can really speak to how the device or system is used. The defendant can cross-examine them on it, and a nervous signatory who has never touched the server doesn't help anyone.
Part B has been the harder question. Section 39 of the BSA recognises opinions of people specially skilled in a field, and Section 39(2) deems an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to be an expert. Very few labs are notified. The Madras High Court had taken the view that only such examiners could sign Part B. Then, in May 2026, the Supreme Court in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India said that view isn't a binding precedent. A person with special skill in computer science and cyber forensics may also be treated as an expert if the court is satisfied. It left the final answer open for a suitable case, though.
Where does that leave you, as of October 2026? Most businesses engage a qualified digital forensics professional to pull the data, compute the hash and sign Part B. Keep that person's qualifications on file in case anyone questions them. And check the current position before you file. The High Courts and the Supreme Court may well say more on this.
Do you always need a certificate?
Not always. In a commercial suit, though, plan as if you do. Under the old law, the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) held that a Section 65B certificate is mandatory when you rely on a copy of an electronic record. Khotkar also said you don't need one if you produce the original device and its owner proves it in the witness box. And a missing certificate can sometimes be supplied later, at the court's discretion.
The BSA added Explanations to Section 57 that treat certain electronic records as primary evidence, including a record from proper custody, unless disputed. How that fits with Section 63 is still being argued. One reading says you need certificates less often when the record comes straight off the owner's device and nobody disputes it. The other says every printout is still computer output and still needs one.
Our view is practical. Carrying the original phone to Saket or the Delhi High Court for every hearing isn't realistic, and it's risky. A certificate filed late depends on the judge's discretion and invites objections. A proper certificate filed with the plaint costs little and ends the argument. So in commercial suits we treat the certificate as part of the document itself. It's not an optional extra.
65B certificate or Section 63 certificate: which one does your suit need?
That depends on when your case started. Section 170 of the BSA says proceedings pending immediately before 1 July 2024 are dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Take a commercial suit filed in 2023. Its electronic records would ordinarily be proved with a 65B certificate in the old form, signed by a person in a responsible official position. No Part B, no hash value.
Suits filed on or after 1 July 2024 fall under the BSA and need the Section 63 certificate in the Schedule format. The grey area is an appeal or execution filed after that date, in a suit decided under the old law. Is it a 'pending proceeding'? You can argue it either way, and courts haven't settled it uniformly.
Where there's doubt, some lawyers file a certificate that meets both sets of requirements. It works because a certificate with Part A, Part B and hash values covers everything a 65B certificate needed anyway. You spend a little more time preparing it. You don't face the objection.
How to prove WhatsApp chats in a commercial suit
WhatsApp evidence in Indian courts is routine now, especially in recovery and supply disputes, and judges have seen plenty of it. The law is rarely the trouble. The trouble is how the chats were saved. We see screenshots cropped at the edges. Chats forwarded to the lawyer's number and printed from there. Phones replaced since the dispute began. Each of these makes life harder.
Start with the phone that received the messages. Use the app's 'export chat' option to create a text file of the whole chat, with media. Once that's done, switch the phone off and put it somewhere safe. Screenshots help the judge read quickly. But the export shows the full conversation with dates and times, and it's much harder to call selective. Let the expert who'll sign Part B do the extraction and compute the hash. Don't have the client emailing files around the office first.
Then there's identity. A chat only helps against the defendant if you can show the number is theirs, or belongs to someone authorised to speak for them. Gather their letterhead, visiting card, invoices, GST records or emails that show the number. Earlier orders placed from the same number, which the defendant then paid for, are very strong proof. Voice notes need a transcript, and someone who knows the voice has to identify the speaker.
When a client walks in with WhatsApp proof, the first thing Advocate B.K. Singh asks is whether the receiving phone still exists and who has it. If it's been exchanged, reset or lost, we check cloud backups and the other devices in the chat (a sales manager's phone in a group, for instance) before a word of the plaint is drafted. Whether chats and bank transfers alone can carry a recovery claim is a bigger question, and our guide on recovering money when all you have is WhatsApp chats and bank transfers deals with it.
How to prove emails
Emails are usually easier than chats. They sit on servers, and their headers show where they came from. If your business uses a company domain, the mail server or hosted email service keeps copies, and your IT administrator can export the relevant messages with headers. A proprietor on free webmail exports the messages from the account, and the expert extracts them.
Section 90 helps with content. The court may presume an email received matches what was sent. Authorship is another matter. If the defendant says 'I never sent that email', you prove the address is theirs through earlier correspondence, their website or letterhead, invoices sent from that address, or payments they made against orders placed from it.
Watch the attachments. A purchase order sent as a PDF is both an email and a document. Your certificate and declaration should cover the attachment as well as the message. Then there are emails an ERP or accounting system sends on its own, like invoices or payment reminders. Someone has to explain how that system works, because the Section 63(2) conditions turn on regular use and proper functioning. Our guide on the documents you'll need for a recovery suit shows how emails sit alongside invoices and ledgers.
Getting emails and chats ready for a commercial suit
Start the day the dispute begins. Not when the plaint is being drafted.
Lock down the sources
Hold on to the phones, laptops and email accounts that have the records. Turn off auto-delete, don't reset or exchange any device, and write down who has each one. Tell your staff in writing not to delete anything about this customer.
Work out what you actually need
Pick the messages that prove the order, the rate, delivery, the admission of dues and any promise to pay. A short dated list keeps the extraction focused without leaving gaps.
Get an expert to extract
A digital forensics professional exports the chats and emails from the original device or account, computes hash values and prepares an extraction report. Keep the original files exactly as they came out.
Sort out the certificate
Whoever is in charge of the device or account signs Part A of the Section 63 certificate. The expert signs Part B with the hash values. For suits pending before 1 July 2024, it's a Section 65B certificate instead, or if you're unsure, one that satisfies both.
Draft the Order XI Rule 6 declaration
This is on oath. It covers the parties to each record, how and when it was produced, the source, who owns and controls the account or device, how the device was working, and that the copy came from the original. It goes in with the plaint or written statement.
File printouts and electronic copies
Give the court readable printouts. Where it helps (voice notes, video), file electronic copies too. Index everything so any message can be found by its date.
Handle admission and denial
When the other side files its statement of admission and denial under Order XI Rule 4, look at whether it gives reasons for denying your chats. No reasons? Ask the court to treat them as not denied and dispense with formal proof.
Prove it through a witness
At trial, the person who sent or received the messages gives evidence by affidavit and faces cross-examination, with the expert if needed. Keep the device handy in case the court asks for it.
How long it takes and what it costs
| Step | Typical time | Costs (other than lawyer fees) |
|---|---|---|
| Securing devices and accounts | The day the dispute starts | Nothing, apart from a spare phone for daily use |
| Forensic extraction and hash values | A day to a week, depending on how much data | The professional's fee depends on how many devices and how much data; ask for a written quote |
| Section 63 certificate and Order XI declaration | A few days, prepared alongside the plaint | Stamp paper and notary charges, where used |
| Section 12A mediation (non-urgent suits) | Up to three months, can be extended by two | Rs 1,000 application fee plus a slab-based mediation fee, shared; check the current schedule |
| Filing the suit | A day once the drafting is done | Ad valorem court fee on the claim under state law; check the current schedule |
| Admission and denial of documents | Usually a few weeks after pleadings close | A party that unreasonably refuses to admit documents can be made to pay costs |
| Forensic examination if authenticity is challenged | Several weeks to several months | Lab or expert fees, often paid first by whoever asks for the test |
| Evidence of the sender, recipient and expert | One or more hearings during trial | Witness travel and expert attendance fees, which you can claim as costs if you win |
What happens at the admission and denial stage?
Most electronic evidence fights are decided here. Quietly. After disclosure and inspection, each side files a statement admitting or denying the other's documents, with an affidavit. Order XI Rule 4 says a denial has to give reasons, and a bare, unsupported denial isn't treated as one. The court can then dispense with formal proof of that document.
Say the defendant just writes 'denied' against your forty WhatsApp messages. You can ask the court to treat them as admitted for the purpose of proof. But if they write 'the number isn't the defendant's' or 'the message dated 12 March has been edited', at least you know exactly what you'll have to prove at trial. You can line up the right witness or expert.
It cuts both ways, of course. If you're the defendant and the plaintiff is relying on chats you believe are doctored, your denial has to say why. Point to the number, the date, the content, or the fact that the message isn't on your own device. A party that unreasonably refuses to admit a document can be ordered to pay costs, exemplary costs included. Our page on disclosure and inspection of documents explains how this stage works from both sides.
When the other side says your chats are fake
Forgery allegations are common. Courts handle them by testing the record, not by believing either side. Under Order XI Rule 6, the court can direct further proof, such as metadata or logs. It can order the device produced, appoint a local commissioner to inspect it, or send the device or data to a forensic lab. This is where your Part B hash earns its keep. If the lab's report on the device gives the same hash for the same export, the editing allegation is answered.
Whoever alleges forgery usually has to say what exactly is forged, and how. A vague line that 'WhatsApp chats can be manipulated' doesn't carry much weight against a properly extracted, certified export backed by matching payments and deliveries. Flip it around, though. A screenshot with no device behind it, sent by the plaintiff's accountant from some other phone? Easy to attack.
Advocate B.K. Singh's advice to clients facing a forgery allegation is simple. Find an independent copy of the same conversation. The same chat on a colleague's phone in the group, the email that followed the call, or the bank transfer that matches the promise in the message. In our experience, one independent source that confirms the record does more than an hour of argument about technology.
What to keep ready
- The original phones, laptops or accounts with the chats and emails, and a note of who's holding each one
- Chat exports with media, plus readable screenshots of the messages that matter
- Email exports with full headers and attachments
- Anything tying the other side to the phone number or email ID, like their letterhead, invoices, GST records or earlier orders
- Device details for Part A (make, model, serial number, IMEI or account ID)
- The expert's extraction report, the hash values, and a note of the expert's qualifications
- The signed Section 63 (or Section 65B) certificate and the Order XI Rule 6 declaration
- Bank statements, invoices and delivery records that back up what the messages say
Mistakes that weaken digital evidence
- Getting rid of the phone. People exchange or reset the device that got the messages, and the best source is gone. The certificate becomes much harder to stand behind.
- Using forwarded copies. If the chat was forwarded to another number and printed from there, you've got a copy of a copy. Extract from the original device.
- Cropping screenshots. Images that show only the helpful lines invite the charge that you hid the context. File the full export too.
- The wrong person signing. Someone who has never used or controlled the device won't last long in cross-examination.
- Forgetting the Order XI declaration. In a commercial suit the certificate alone doesn't do it. The declaration on oath is a separate requirement.
- Filing late. Records you didn't disclose with the plaint may be refused later unless you show reasonable cause. Put them in at the start.
- Forgetting the old law exists. In suits pending before 1 July 2024, a certificate made only in the new format may draw an objection, so check which Act applies.
Where is the suit filed, and do the rules change by court?
The evidence rules are the same in every commercial court. The BSA and the amended CPC apply across India. What changes is where you file. In Delhi, suits up to Rs 2 crore go to the District Judge (Commercial Court) at the district complexes, Tis Hazari, Saket, Karkardooma, Rohini, Dwarka and Patiala House, and suits above Rs 2 crore go to the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court. In UP and Haryana, they go to the court designated as the Commercial Court for the district, such as Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Gurugram or Faridabad. Check the current pecuniary limit before you file.
The Delhi High Court has the most settled practice on electronic records. E-filing and electronic annexures are normal there, and judges expect clean indexing and proper certificates from the very first filing. District commercial courts apply the same law, but some still like paper sets of the main messages for hearings. Ask about the court's current practice on electronic copies.
Got an arbitration clause in the contract? Then the dispute may go to an arbitral tribunal instead. Under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the strict rules of evidence don't bind a tribunal in the same way. Good extraction and certificates still help, since the award may be challenged later. For arbitration matters, see arbitrationlawyer.in.
How this plays out for different businesses
Traders and distributors in Chandni Chowk, Karol Bagh or Bhagirath Palace often run an entire relationship on WhatsApp. Rate lists, orders, dispatch photos, payment promises, all of it. For them the phone is the ledger. Treat the phone of whoever handles a customer as business property. Back it up. Keep it when that person leaves.
IT and service companies usually agree scope and acceptance over email and project tools. Their problem is volume. Thousands of messages, and maybe twenty that matter. A focused extraction with a short index helps the court far more than a printout of everything. The wider fight is covered on our page about disputes over IT, software and service contracts.
Exporters and importers deal with overseas buyers whose email servers sit abroad. Their own sent and received mail, extracted from their own account, is normally enough. Proving who the foreign sender is takes more care. Manufacturers running ERP systems should have an IT person who can explain how the automatic invoice emails get generated.
Startups and MSMEs often have the cleanest digital trail and the messiest storage. Critical chats sit on the founders' personal phones. Move the main customer conversations to a business account once, and back the phones up. It saves a lot of grief when a dispute comes. If your debt rests mostly on records like these, read our guide on which documents prove a debt when nothing was signed as well.
A made-up example: the apparel exporter and the logistics firm
This one is invented, to show how the pieces fit. A Noida apparel exporter hires a Gurugram logistics company to move consignments to the port. The rate, the free storage days and the agreed compensation for delay are settled in a WhatsApp group with the logistics company's operations head, and confirmed in two emails. Three consignments miss their vessel. The exporter claims Rs 42 lakh. The logistics company says it never agreed to any compensation.
The exporter keeps the phones of its shipping manager and its director. Both were in the group. A forensics professional exports the group chat from both phones, and the emails from the exporter's company mail account, computes hash values and signs Part B. The director signs Part A for the chat. The IT administrator signs it for the emails. The plaint is filed in 2025 after Section 12A mediation fails, with the records, the certificates and the Order XI Rule 6 declaration annexed.
In its admission and denial, the logistics company writes one word against the chats. 'Denied.' The court holds that isn't a valid denial and dispenses with formal proof of the messages, while letting the logistics company argue about what they mean. From then on the case is about how to read the agreed terms. Nobody is arguing over whether the messages exist.
Again, this is a made-up illustration. Every case turns on its own records and on how the court sees them.
What to do this week
Secure the devices and accounts first. Find every phone and mailbox holding messages with the other side, write down who has each, switch off auto-delete and stop any device exchange. Then list the ten to twenty messages that matter most, with dates. Match each one to an invoice, a delivery record or a payment.
Bring in a forensics professional for extraction and hash values before the plaint is drafted, and decide who'll sign Part A. If your suit is already pending, check whether it was filed before 1 July 2024, and whether the certificates on record are under the right Act. Our page on document disclosure shows where electronic records fit at the disclosure stage, and the page on money recovery suits deals with the claim itself.
Want your chats and emails looked at before you file? Or updates on how courts are treating electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA? Send them to Advocate B.K. Singh's team through the contact page.
Frequently asked questions
Are WhatsApp chats valid evidence in a civil court in India?
Yes. WhatsApp messages are electronic records, and they're admissible if you prove them the way the law requires. That usually means a certificate under Section 63 BSA, or Section 65B of the old Evidence Act in older cases. How much weight they carry depends on who sent them and what other documents back them up.
Who can sign Part B of the Section 63 certificate?
An expert. A notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence qualifies. In May 2026 the Supreme Court indicated that someone specially skilled in computer science and cyber forensics may also qualify, if the court is satisfied. It didn't give a final answer, so check before you file.
Is a screenshot enough without the phone?
On its own, it's weak. Without the original device, or a proper extraction and certificate, the other side can attack it easily. Keep the phone, and get the chat exported and certified.
Can a certificate be filed after the plaint?
Courts do have discretion to allow a certificate later, as the old law recognised in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020). But in a commercial suit, delay invites objections and you may have to explain it. File it with the plaint wherever you can.
What is a hash value and why does the court need it?
It's a unique code worked out from the data. Alter even one character and it changes. Because it's recorded in Part B, the court can check later that the record filed hasn't been touched since extraction.
Do I need a certificate for emails from my own Gmail account?
If you're filing printouts or copies, yes. File a certificate and, in a commercial suit, the Order XI Rule 6 declaration too. You sign Part A as the account holder. An expert signs Part B.
What if the other side's WhatsApp number is in an employee's name?
Then you have to link that number to the defendant through other material. Orders placed from it that the defendant paid for, letterheads or invoices showing the number, or proof that the employee was authorised to deal with you.
Do these rules apply in arbitration?
Under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arbitral tribunals aren't strictly bound by evidence law. Still, a clean extraction and certificate make the record harder to attack, including later if someone challenges the award.
Advocate B.K. Singh
Founder of B.K. Singh & Associates. MCA, LL.B., LL.M. More than twenty years in practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, district and commercial courts in Delhi NCR, and tribunals.
This guide explains the law in general terms and is not legal advice. For advice on your own papers, contact the team.