Karnataka High Court Rules Against Issuance of Notices via WhatsApp: Legal Implications and Analysis

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that police cannot issue notices to accused persons via WhatsApp, citing the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter. The decision came in the case of Pavan Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Anr, where the High Court quashed a notice served through WhatsApp and directed the police to follow proper legal procedures as prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Background of the Case

The case involved a 25-year-old student from Tamil Nadu accused of identity theft and impersonation using a computer resource. On February 14, 2025, the Adugodi Police Station in Karnataka issued a notice via WhatsApp directing him to appear before the police. The student challenged the notice before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that it was not legally valid as per the Supreme Court’s recent rulings.

Justice SR Krishna Kumar presided over the case and observed that the Apex Court had already ruled against the use of WhatsApp for serving notices, making it clear that such notices cannot substitute the legally prescribed modes of service.

Legal Basis of the Judgment

The ruling was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr, which held that service of notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS / Section 41(A) of CrPC via WhatsApp is impermissible.

Section 35(3) of BNSS (earlier Section 41A of CrPC) states that in cases where arrest is not necessary, police may issue a notice directing the accused to appear before them. However, such notices must be served through legally recognized means, which do not include WhatsApp or other electronic messaging platforms.

Key Observations by the Karnataka High Court

1. WhatsApp Notices Are Not Legally Recognized
   The High Court reiterated that service of notices must align with statutory provisions. Electronic messaging platforms like WhatsApp cannot be considered a valid alternative to the procedures outlined in the CrPC or BNSS.
2. Supreme Court’s Stand is Binding
   The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s clear directive that police must not issue summons through WhatsApp. The judgment emphasized that all legal notices should be served through official and legally sanctioned channels.
3. Notice Quashed, But Fresh Notice Permitted
   The High Court quashed the WhatsApp notice, holding it invalid. However, it allowed the police to issue a fresh notice following the legal procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS / 41A CrPC.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling sets a strong legal precedent regarding the use of electronic communication in criminal procedures. The key takeaways are:

1. Reinforcement of Due Process
   The judgment upholds the principle that all legal procedures, including service of notices, must comply with statutory requirements. The use of WhatsApp, being an informal communication tool, does not meet the legal criteria.
2. Impact on Law Enforcement Practices
   Law enforcement agencies across India must re-evaluate their practices to ensure that notices are served through legally acceptable means such as personal delivery, registered post, or other prescribed methods.
3. Potential for Future Legislation
   While the Court has ruled against WhatsApp notices, there may be future debates on whether secure digital methods should be formally recognized for serving legal notices. However, unless such provisions are explicitly introduced into the law, courts will continue to reject notices served through WhatsApp.
4. Rights of the Accused
   The ruling ensures that accused persons are not subjected to informal or improper legal procedures, reinforcing their right to due process and fair trial.

Reaction from the Legal Community

The legal community has largely welcomed the ruling, considering it a necessary safeguard against arbitrary police actions. Advocate Gnanesha NI, who represented the petitioner, argued that police must follow legal norms rather than resorting to unofficial communication channels.

On the other hand, Additional Special Public Prosecutor Rashmi Jadhav, representing the State, contended that digital communication is efficient and widely used. However, the High Court ruled that efficiency cannot override legal validity.

Previous Supreme Court Rulings on the Issue

The Supreme Court has previously made it clear that:

• Notices under CrPC must be served through recognized methods such as postal mail, hand delivery, or other legally approved means.
• WhatsApp or email cannot be substitutes for physical delivery, as they do not provide verifiable proof of receipt in the legal sense.
• Courts have stressed the need for a uniform and standardized procedure for serving legal notices.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Pavan Kumar v. State of Karnataka reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for serving legal notices. By striking down the use of WhatsApp for official summons, the Court has ensured that due process and legal integrity are maintained.

This decision is expected to shape future legal practices, compelling law enforcement agencies to strictly follow the prescribed methods for issuing notices. As digital communication continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether future legal frameworks will accommodate electronic service of notices, but for now, WhatsApp notices remain impermissible under Indian law.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-4vp