Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that was served to a 25-year-old man via WhatsApp. The court emphasized that serving such notices through WhatsApp is not permissible under the law.
Case Background:
The petitioner, Pavankumar, a resident of Tamil Nadu, was directed to appear before the police through a notice sent via WhatsApp on February 14, 2025. This notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in connection with a case registered under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Aggrieved by this mode of service, Pavankumar challenged the notice in the Karnataka High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Represented by Advocate Gnanesha N I, the petitioner contended that the service of notice through WhatsApp did not comply with the procedural requirements established by law. The defense argued that such electronic service methods could lead to uncertainties regarding receipt and acknowledgment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., where it was held that serving notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) through WhatsApp is impermissible.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents, represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor Rashmi Jadhav, maintained that the notice was issued by the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. They argued that the use of electronic communication methods, such as WhatsApp, was a practical approach to ensure prompt delivery of notices, especially in the digital age. The respondents contended that the petitioner had received the notice, as evidenced by the acknowledgment on WhatsApp, and thus, there was no prejudice caused.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, presiding over the case, referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. The High Court observed that the Supreme Court had categorically held that serving notices under Section 41A of the CrPC through WhatsApp is impermissible. Drawing a parallel, Justice Krishna Kumar noted that Section 35(3) of the BNSS serves a similar purpose as Section 41A of the CrPC, aiming to ensure that individuals are informed of proceedings against them in a manner that guarantees receipt and acknowledgment.
The court emphasized that while electronic communication offers speed and convenience, it lacks the reliability and verifiability required for legal processes. The possibility of non-receipt, delayed receipt, or issues with verifying the recipient’s identity renders WhatsApp an unsuitable medium for serving legal notices. The court further highlighted that adherence to established procedures is crucial to uphold the rights of individuals and maintain the integrity of legal processes.
Consequently, the Karnataka High Court quashed the notice issued to Pavankumar via WhatsApp. However, the court granted liberty to the police to issue a fresh notice in compliance with the prescribed legal procedures, ensuring proper service as mandated by law.
Conclusion:
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity in legal processes. While technology continues to transform communication methods, the courts have reaffirmed that certain traditional practices remain essential to ensure fairness and justice. Legal practitioners and law enforcement agencies must adhere to established procedures for serving notices to uphold the rights of individuals and maintain the sanctity of legal proceedings.