The Supreme Court has determined that police unaccountably cannot serve notices to accused persons or suspects by using WhatsApp or any other electronic method. It further ordered the police to issue notices personally in the interest of the legal system’s transparency and fairness, with the emphasis of not disregarding the established procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Indian Supreme Court has pronounced that notices under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be issued through WhatsApp or various other electronic means. This is to encourage serving legal notices in a manner that is achievable, reportable, and known to the recipient.

The ruling was made because of previously served notices using electronic means which resulted in confusion with procedural matters and issues with the proper serving of acknowledgement. The Supreme Court relied on other rulings that have been made in which the notice….form of the Delhi High Court and others stated that these procedures are not conforming to the doctrine of law.

The court clear stated that serving notices electronically is not a suitable option under the set modes of serving notices under the CrPC or BNSS.
Judgment was delivered by a bench with the assistance of Justice M. M. Sundresh, and during that time, he was part of the bench. He was a part of the bench and, as such, encouraged the utmost respect for the legal process, which entails a strict adherence to the procedures and processes that are set up therewith. He wrote that, not doing so is not an option as follows:

Key Directives:

Mode of Service:
Police by all means have to serve the notices either by going in person or using the methods provided in BNSS and Crpc Law – Guidebook of India. Utilizing electronic means lets say WhatsApp, emails, and SMS is automatically disregarded.

Institutional Monitoring:
The court as per the reporting guidelines also ordered the High Courts to form committees for compliance of its directives and present compliance reports on a monthly basis.

Preventing Arbitrary Practices:
These rulings are meant to forestall the infringement of the procedural rules by actions like the serving of the notices by the police. This rule also serves to inhibit electronic service of notices which do not have an official record and will be ignored as unattended.

Accountability of States and Union Territories:
The all encompassing guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court have been imposed on all States and Union Territories through the standing orders that were directed to be issued as well as complied with on all levels of administration.

There are no two ways about it that all these measure and moves seek to reinforce the legal framework’s respect for fairness and looking after the accused so that there are no procedural lapses which trigger arbitrary enforcement.
In order to avoid competing means of service for the court’s notice, the Supreme Court seeks to promote uniformity that will give clarity and confidence to all participants in a suit.
Legal practitioners and advocates of human rights have welcomed the decision, saying it is a stride in achieving preserving the law. It shifts the focus onto how the court intends to maintain the equilibrium between modern technology and existing legal procedures.