Madras HC Allows WhatsApp Drug Messages Taken From Father's Phone to Be Marked in Custody Dispute

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that child welfare, not parental privacy alone, governs admissibility of electronic records allegedly showing drug use in guardianship proceedings.

The Madras High Court has allowed a mother to place five sets of WhatsApp conversations and screenshots on record in a guardianship proceeding, overturning a refusal by the Learned Master who had excluded the material on privacy grounds. Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, sitting singly, held on 9 July 2026 that material allegedly revealing drug use, procurement of narcotic substances, and association with persons involved in such activity could not be excluded at the threshold merely because it originated in a private communication. The court reasoned that child welfare is a matter of public concern and that the privacy interest of a parent must be weighed against the distinct societal interest in safeguarding the child — not treated as an individual right that automatically forecloses inquiry.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Barath Janakiram L filed the main petition, O.P. No. 786 of 2023, seeking appointment as guardian and permanent custody of the couple's minor child, born on 11 February 2016. His wife, Mathangi V, opposes the petition, contending that he is unfit for custody on account of alleged drug and alcohol use.

In support of her case, Mathangi sought to mark five sets of documents: a WhatsApp conversation with one Ms. Rajeshwari concerning various affairs and alcohol abuse between 2018 and 2020; a conversation with an alleged drug dealer for the purchase of a narcotic substance dated 31 July 2019; a WhatsApp conversation with one Mr. Vimal Raj G. Sant about planned drug and alcohol consumption in September 2020; screenshots of web searches regarding various drugs in 2020; and screenshots from what the mother described as inappropriate websites. She states that in 2020, while the father was asleep, she saw messages on his mobile phone and photographed them using her own device.

When the mother sought to mark these materials during the father's cross-examination before the Learned Master — conducted across three sittings on 23 August 2024, 24 October 2024, and 28 October 2024 — the Learned Master declined. Relying on this Court's earlier decision in R v. B, dated 30 October 2024, the Master held that the material concerned the personal liberty and privacy of a third party. Mathangi then filed A. No. 6478 of 2024, seeking an order from the High Court permitting the documents to be received and marked.

How the Court Distinguished R v. B

The father's counsel initially objected to the use of the material on privacy grounds, pointing to R v. B as authority. In that case, the High Court had considered the admissibility of electronic material — specifically call data — obtained from a spouse's mobile phone without consent, addressing both spousal privacy and the absence of proper certification of the electronic record.

Dr. Justice Maria Clete drew a clear distinction. The question before the court was not whether privacy as an individual right had been violated. The real question was whether material allegedly bearing on parental fitness and a child's safety could be excluded at the threshold in a guardianship proceeding on that ground alone.

The court engaged with the academic framework offered by Priscilla M. Regan in Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy (University of North Carolina Press, 1995), which the judgment cited for the proposition that treating privacy purely as an individual right — to be weighed against social interests presented as belonging to society as a whole — structurally weakens it. Regan argues instead that privacy is a common, public and collective value: common because society shares an understanding of its importance; public because it supports democratic participation, freedom of communication and freedom of association; and collective because a meaningful level of privacy cannot be secured by isolated individuals acting alone.

The court adopted this wider conception to reframe the analysis. Recognising privacy as a social value removes the artificial opposition between the individual and society, but it also means that the court must identify both the societal interest that privacy protects and the distinct societal interest said to justify use of the private material. In this case, both sides of that ledger carried public weight: secure communication on one side, and the safety and welfare of a child on the other.

The Child Welfare Standard and the Limits of Relevance

The court was emphatic that the admission of these documents was not a determination of the truth of any allegation. The question at this stage was only whether material said to concern drug use and drug-related associations could be received for consideration in the guardianship proceeding.

Dr. Justice Maria Clete held that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, encompassing not only physical comfort and financial support but also safety, emotional security, moral welfare, and the environment in which the child may be placed. Material with a real and direct bearing on those matters may therefore be received.

The court equally set a limiting principle: every private communication of a parent does not become relevant merely because custody is in issue. The material must have a rational connection with the child's welfare. Material introduced only to embarrass a party, damage reputation, or widen the matrimonial dispute must be excluded. The five sets of documents in question — alleged drug dealings, narcotic substance procurement, and associations with persons involved in drug supply — were held to satisfy the rational connection test.

Regarding the privacy concern, the court held that judicial use of such material does not strip it of its private character. Privacy may be preserved by confining the material to the custody proceeding, examining it confidentially, protecting unrelated third-party information, preventing publication or collateral use, and insisting on proof of source, authenticity, completeness, and context.

The Father's Objections and What Remains Open

Once the court raised the question of whether drug-related material could be treated merely as a matter of individual privacy in a child custody proceeding, counsel for the father did not press the privacy objection further. He confined his objections to source, genuineness, proof, relevance, admissibility, and certification of the electronic records. Counsel for the mother accepted that all such objections would remain open.

The father had already, during cross-examination, denied that the WhatsApp messages were sent from his phone. He disputes the source, authorship, authenticity, and contents of the material. These disputes are preserved in full.

The court made plain that marking a document does not amount to proof of its contents. The mother must establish that the records were taken from the father's phone, that they are complete and unaltered, that the participants are properly identified, and that the statutory requirements governing electronic evidence have been met. The sufficiency of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is also to be considered in accordance with law.

The father retains the right to cross-examine the mother and to raise all objections regarding source, authorship, authenticity, integrity, completeness, relevance, admissibility, and evidentiary value. The court stated that no adverse conclusion shall be drawn merely because the documents are received or marked.

Outcome

A. No. 6478 of 2024 was allowed. The five sets of documents — the conversation about affairs and alcohol abuse between 2018 and 2020, the conversation with an alleged drug dealer dated 31 July 2019, the September 2020 drug and alcohol planning exchange, the drug-related web search screenshots, and the screenshots from inappropriate websites — may be received and marked before the Learned Master. Their admission is expressly subject to proof of genuineness, relevance, admissibility, statutory certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and all objections of the father. The court recorded that no opinion has been expressed on the truth of any allegation concerning drugs, alcohol, personal relationships, or any other conduct attributed to the father. Those matters will be decided only after evidence is concluded and the materials are tested in accordance with law. No costs were imposed.