The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a notice sent via WhatsApp cannot be treated as valid service under the law. The court declared such electronic communication legally insufficient, saying it “strikes at the very foundation of the constitutional guarantee of liberty.” The ruling came in a contempt petition filed by Jaipur resident Ravi Meena, who alleged illegal arrest and non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines against arbitrary detention.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar held a police officer guilty of contempt on March 23, with the next hearing scheduled for sentencing on April 6.
Why Can A WhatsApp Message Not Serve As A Legal Notice?
The case centered on a notice dated January 25, 2023, sent to the petitioner via WhatsApp by an investigating officer of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), asking him to appear for questioning.
The court made clear that statutory procedures for serving a notice, such as personal delivery, affixation, or recognised postal methods, cannot be replaced by informal electronic communication.
“The intimation made through WhatsApp does not satisfy the statutory requirement of service contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and therefore cannot be treated as a valid service of notice in the eyes of law,” the court said.
Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requires police to issue a notice of appearance to a person suspected of a cognisable offence, rather than arresting them immediately, provided the offence carries a sentence of less than seven years. The provision protects individuals from unnecessary arrest, as long as they comply with the notice and cooperate with the investigation.
How Did The Officer’s Actions Lead To A Contempt Finding?
The petitioner had replied to the WhatsApp notice on January 30, 2023, requesting more time to appear due to his wife’s illness. The investigating agency neither responded nor issued a fresh notice through any legally recognised channel before going ahead with the arrest on February 1, 2023.
The court found that no valid notice under Section 41-A was served between the registration of the FIR in September 2021 and January 2023. It also noted that even if the petitioner was unavailable at home, the officer could have used alternative lawful methods such as affixation or postal service.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), both of which require strict compliance with Section 41-A to prevent arbitrary arrests.
“Accordingly, this court is satisfied that respondent number 1, Pushpendra Singh Rathod, has committed contempt by violating the Principles laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and breached the personal liberty of the petitioner without adhering to the principles laid down in the aforesaid case,” the court said.
Additional Superintendent of Police Pushpendra Singh Rathod was found guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of judicial directions and has been directed to remain personally present at the April 6 sentencing hearing.
