The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that electronic records such as WhatsApp chats, email prints, screenshots, digital photographs, and DVDs can be accepted in court if they are supported by a valid self-certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order while hearing a civil revision petition arising out of an ongoing matrimonial dispute before a Senior Civil Judge Court in Amalapuram.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a divorce proceeding filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. During the trial, the petitioner sought permission to place several electronic records before the court, including WhatsApp status updates, email prints, screenshots, photographs, and an HP DVD.
The trial court had earlier allowed applications for receiving additional documents and recalling a witness for marking those documents. However, when the petitioner attempted to formally exhibit the electronic records, objections were raised by the respondent.
The respondent argued that the documents could not be accepted without a certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by a proper authority. Based on that objection, the trial court refused to mark several documents.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that a self-certificate issued by a person having lawful control over the device should be treated as sufficient compliance with Section 65B. The petitioner also relied on provisions of the Family Courts Act.
The High Court, however, clarified that the trial court in the present matter was not functioning as a Family Court. Because of that, the relaxed evidentiary standards applicable to Family Courts could not automatically apply here.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal, which held that a Section 65B certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence and may be issued by a person in lawful control of the device.
“The certificate can also be issued by a person in lawful control of the device,” the court observed while explaining the legal position.
Justice Cheemalapati further explained that such a certificate must clearly identify the electronic record, describe how it was produced, provide device details, and confirm that the device was functioning properly.
The High Court held that the trial court had incorrectly assumed that only a certificate issued by a “proper authority” would satisfy Section 65B requirements.
Setting aside that part of the order, the court directed the trial judge to examine whether the petitioner’s self-certificate fulfilled all statutory requirements. If found compliant, the petitioner should be permitted to mark the WhatsApp records, email prints, screenshots, photographs, and DVD as evidence.
The civil revision petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: X and Y
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No.1239/2024
Judge: Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
Decision Date: 29 April 2026
