SC allows serving of notices via WhatsApp, email
CJI: If It’s 2 Blue Ticks, Receiver Has Seen It
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:11.07.2020
In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed in principle that serving notices and summons to people, integral to judicial processes, through instant messaging services like WhatsApp and Telegram, in addition to emails, would be legally valid. This will be a significant boost to designated messaging services, already widely used informally for official work in government, as they get a legal stamp of approval.
A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices R S Reddy and A S Bopanna agreed to suggestions of attorney general K K Venugopal and solicitor general Tushar Mehta that sending summons and notices through email would constitute valid delivery of these legal instruments asking a respondent to either appear before the court or respond to a court query. It said this innovation was needed as physical delivery of notices and summons was difficult in the lockdown period.
On another issue, the SC agreed to examine the Centre’s suggestion that banks could be permitted to get Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt (LAD) from borrowers within 45 days of lifting of lockdown to avoid initiation of recovery proceedings. This would ease anxiety of banks and thousands of borrowers in cases of expiry of three-year limitation period during the prolonged lockdown which could lead to initiation of recovery proceedings.
On messaging services, Venugopal expressed reservations about WhatsApp. “Since the messenger service claims that it is end-to-end encrypted, it would be difficult to prove legitimate service of summons/notices sent through WhatsApp,” he said. The CJI replied, “If the sent notice/summons in message form reflects two blue ticks, then it will constitute as valid service.”
However, Mehta said, “It is easy to tweak WhatsApp settings, as I have done, to not show the sender the blue ticks. This will give an erroneous impression that the person has not received the summons despite him receiving and going through it.” Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra agreed with Mehta.
SC: Won’t interfere with cheque validity period
CJI S A Bobde then said WhatsApp messages could be in addition to summons and notices sent through emails. However, in the draft order, the bench mentioned instant messaging services instead of WhatsApp or Telegram and said it would not commit the mistake of a photocopy machine being called a ‘Xerox’ machine. Formal orders from the court are likely to be uploaded on Monday.
However, the SC refused to extend the threemonth validity period for cheques. The bench said the three-month validity period for cheques was not stipulated by any statute but was based on an RBI direction under the Banking Regulation Act. As RBI through senior advocate V Giri pleaded that any tinkering with the cheque validity period could affect the banking system, the bench said, “We will not interfere with the cheque validity period.”
The SC had earlier ordered, “All periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, shall be extended with effect from March 15 till further orders to be passed by this court in the present proceedings.”
HDFC Bank, through senior advocate Shyam Divan, had said where the three-year limitation period for repayment of debt prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 had lapsed during the lockdown period or was about to lapse immediately after lifting of the lockdown, banks would be expected to move courts or tribunals for filing recovery proceedings or make a virtually impossible dash for obtaining LADs. The bank had sought extension of the limitation period to avoid massive litigation.
Sending summons and notices through email would constitute valid delivery of these legal instruments. Innovation needed as physical delivery of notices and summons difficult in lockdown period.
3-Judge Bench headed by CJI S A Bobde
No comments:
Post a Comment