Quick answer
Yes, but a bare printout of a WhatsApp screenshot is not enough. A screenshot is a "computer output" of an electronic record. Under Sections 61 to 63 B.S.A. it is admissible only if the conditions of Section 63 are met and it is accompanied by the Section 63(4) certificate, signed by the person in charge of the device and by an expert, in the form given in the Schedule. Under Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (decided on old Section 65B, which Section 63 B.S.A. replaces), the certificate is not needed if the original phone itself is produced and proved by its owner. Even an admitted screenshot can still be challenged as altered, or as sent by someone other than the account holder.
The law: Sections 61 to 63 B.S.A.
- Section 61: an electronic or digital record cannot be refused only because it is electronic; subject to Section 63, it has the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as any other document.
- Section 62: the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63.
- Section 63(1) and (2): a printout or copy of an electronic record produced by a computer or communication device (the "computer output") is deemed a document and admissible without the original, if the device was regularly used for the activity, the information was regularly fed into it, the device was working properly, and the output reproduces or is derived from the information so fed in.
- Section 63(4) and the Schedule: a certificate identifying the record and the device must be submitted with the record "at each instance" it is offered. Part A is filled by the party and Part B by an expert; both state the hash value (a digital fingerprint that shows whether a file has changed).
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (Supreme Court, 14 July 2020; (2020) 7 SCC 1) held that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the old Evidence Act is a condition precedent to admitting electronic evidence, affirming Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and overruling Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018). Oral evidence cannot replace the certificate. The certificate is unnecessary if the original itself is produced, for example by the owner of a mobile phone stepping into the witness box and proving that the device on which the information was first stored is owned or operated by him. In Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 217, decided 10 March 2026), a three-judge bench applied this rule, noting Section 63 B.S.A. as the corresponding provision, and held call detail records inadmissible because the certificate was not proved.
Admissibility and proof of the sender are different questions
| Question | What answers it |
|---|---|
| Can the screenshot be received in evidence? | Section 63 conditions and the Section 63(4) certificate, or production of the original device |
| Is the record unaltered? | Hash value, device examination, expert opinion |
| Who actually sent the message? | Separate proof linking the account and device to the sender: possession of the phone, SIM and account records, admissions, surrounding conduct |
Armaan receives threatening WhatsApp messages from a number saved as Aadil. He takes screenshots and wants to file them. He should keep the phone safely, produce the printouts with a Section 63(4) certificate (Part A signed by him, Part B by an expert, with hash values), or produce the phone itself and prove it is his. If Aadil says someone else was using his number, the prosecution still needs evidence connecting Aadil to the account, such as proof that the SIM and handset were his and in his possession at the time.
Current-law note
Section 61 B.S.A. is new; Sections 62 and 63 B.S.A. correspond to Sections 65A and 65B of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with additions such as "communication device" and the new certificate form with an expert's part. The B.S.A. has applied since 1 July 2024; matters pending on that date continue under the old Act (Section 170(2)). For a wider revision, see the B.S.A. complete notes.
Exam point
A WhatsApp screenshot is admissible only with the Section 63(4) B.S.A. certificate (old Section 65B), unless the original phone is produced (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, 2020); admissibility does not by itself prove who sent the message.
Sources and further reading
- B.S.A., 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), Gazette of India
- Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 217), Supreme Court of India
- Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab (4 May 2022), Supreme Court of India, quoting Arjun Panditrao Khotkar
- Correspondence table and comparison summary: B.S.A., 2023 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (CAPT Bhopal)
