Though technology has not made time travel possible, it does allow us to erase our traces and escape the consequences. While the law has sought to keep pace with technological advancement, it is merely a drop in the ocean, with a lot remaining unexplored. One such blindspot is the message editing feature of the messaging apps. Courts have dealt with deleted/disappearing/forged/unsent messages but have not explored the legal implications of editing texts.
In Telegram FZ LLC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (Del) 574), decided almost after half a decade of the introduction of the edit feature, the Delhi High Court [DHC] addressed its possible malicious usage. J. Tejas Karia, noting how the feature could be used to replace an attachment in earlier messages, allowed for restricting the message-editing feature temporarily during the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination. The court acknowledged how the feature could change the apparent history of what was communicated.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. An edited message does not leave a gap. It replaces the message with a new one, raising a serious question regarding its admissibility as evidence. The crucial question remains who bears the burden of proof in such cases? To examine, it is essential to note how the edit feature works, the court's approach to treating text messages as evidence, before proposing a workable solution to such malicious editing.
How does this Edit feature function?
Platforms, such as Telegram and WhatsApp, allow users to correct mistakes or make changes to their text without deleting and sending a fresh message. The time limits often vary but for Whatsapp, it remains fifteen minutes, labeling the message as “edited”. It ensures that typos are corrected and the sentence is clarified. But there's a catch: End-to-End Encryption.
Owing to, End-to-End Encryption, once the message is edited, the original one never sees the light of day. Neither WhatsApp, nor the parties have it stored in their devices and underlying metadata stands irrecoverable unless it is backed-up. With edited messages, what remains is a fresh message, with a label, indicating that some change was made.
If no such backup exists, the original message as communicated to the receiver may be lost forever. Whatsapp's policy states the data is only retained for the purpose of aiding law enforcement authorities in instances where a prior valid preservation request had been made. This is practically impossible in case of edited messages where the editing timeline remains as short as fifteen minutes. Putting it simply, it is not that the victim is left with nothing, but the question is whether it is enough to avail a legal remedy?
Admissibility and the Courts' Approach to Missing Messages
Text messages, fall within the ambit of electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and remain admissible upon satisfying the conditions outlined under Section 63 of the BSA. This includes a certificate of admissibility, required to prove the authenticity of such chats, ensuring that there has been no modification or alteration where there existed a duty to preserve such evidence. However, this position assumes the existence of an original to compare with the one in question. The grey area lies where the original messages cannot be recovered.
In this context, it is essential to examine how judicial precedents have addressed this issue. In Praveen Kumar Malhotra v. Arun Kumar, where an individual deleted certain messages, the court relied on the surrounding circumstances, including order of the text chain, the identity of the senders, the timestamps and other relevant factors, to identify what the messages were likely to entail. The Allahabad HC, in Amar Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 LiveLaw (AB) 24) however, took a different stance and refused to presume whether the group participants had actually received or read the message. In another case while dealing with disappearing messages, the DHC in the case of State v. Anchit Jain , noted the surrounding circumstances, including inability of accused to produce the correct phone and contradicting EMIE, the use of such technology ultimately constituted a case of destruction of evidence. The legal position, therefore, remains ambiguous. The courts rely on the surrounding circumstances, but at the same time refrained from filling gaps or manufacturing evidence where the message did not exist.
Beyond Indian jurisprudence, a case closely connected with the issue-at-hand is Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Optymyze LLC (2021 WL 1811627 Del. Ch. Jan. 4, 2021), where the Court of Chancery dealt with the tampering of evidence by editing messages using microsoft teams' inbuilt edit feature. The court relied on the doctrine of spoliation of evidence and observed that the messages had not been edited merely to rectify typographical errors or to ensure clarity, reflecting how edited messages may be used to systematically hide misconduct or incriminating content. The court ordered the preservation of the native Microsoft Teams files and examined the conversation in context along with the relevant timestamps.
Furthermore, in Fast v. GoDaddy.com LLC (No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2022), the US district court of Arizona applied doctrine of spoilage and drew adverse inference where the messages were made to disappear intentionally via the unsent feature. Spoliation refers to an act of destruction/material alteration or failure to preserve evidence, barring the other side from using the same for litigation. The Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing electronically stored information, allows the court to draw adverse inference where the party fails to preserve the evidence and it could not be recovered through additional discovery.
Tracing the court's differing approach a query arises: Is there a need to treat edited messages differently? Yes. A disappearing message is evidence that vanishes, whereas an edited message is one whose form changes and substitution may be just innocent in effect. Consequently, the theory of spoliation, designed to address destruction, loss or material alteration of evidence may not be the best resort. The bigger question persists: Who carries the burden of proof for these edited messages?
Where Lies the Burden Of Proof?
Section 104 of the BSA, 2023 places the burden of proof on the party asserting the fact on which the legal right or liability depends. Where the original message disappears, the victim can hardly determine the sender's potential motive making it difficult to hold the sender liable. This leaves the receiver of an edited message in a vulnerable position, owing to his inability to reasonably foresee or anticipate the sender's act of editing.
In such a scenario, the principle of special knowledge becomes relevant. Section 106 of the erstwhile Evidence act, 1972 now Section 109 of BSA shifts burden of proof over the accused where he holds special knowledge of the fact in question. In the case of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, (AIR 1956 SC 404), the Supreme Court [SC] cautioned that the provision does not transfer the entire burden to the accused. It applies where it becomes impossible or disproportionately impossible for the other party to prove the fact. In Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, the court emphasised that the prosecution must first establish the presence of special knowledge with the accused.
In case of edited messages, the receiver is deprived of the access to the original message, which could be vital in proving the case. On the other hand, the editor shall always have the first mover knowledge, and ability to take a screenshot or to save the original message, before editing. This brings the ball squarely to the sender's court, as the party having special knowledge. However, where the nature of correction is merely technical in nature, the court should not blindly shift the burden. It should shift only after the recipient establishes a credible basis, drawn from surrounding circumstances for doubting that the edited message reflects the original position.
A subsequent query to this effect could be with respect to the application in cases of civil dispute where the standard of proof remains preponderance of probabilities. The courts have applied section 106 to both civil and criminal proceedings, the only difference comes with the standard one has to match. So, the same conceptual distinction can operate without importing the criminal standard of proof.
What happens if the Editor does not provide for the explanation?
The shift of would remain a toothless tiger without a consequence for non-compliance. Section 114 of the erstwhile Evidence Act, now Section 119 of the BSA provides for one. Illustration (g), of the provision, as emphasised by the SC in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, (1968 SCR (3) 862), allows the court to presume that evidence withheld would be unfavorable to that party withholding it. Once the recipient establishes a credible basis to show substantial change and special knowledge with the sender, who possesses the only realistic means of preserving/accessing the pre-edit text fails to produce the original nor reasonable justification for absence, the court may then draw adverse inference.
The law already provides redress where the evidence disappears, however, the edited messages present a problem that remains unaddressed. An edit does not just erase history. It rewrites the visible version of history while leaving the recipient to prove what was said without access to the original. Since the sender alone can preserve the original, special knowledge offers the most workable answer. Once the recipient establishes a credible basis for questioning the edited version, the burden of explaining the edit can shift to the sender. If the sender fails to produce the original or offer a reasonable justification, the court may draw an adverse inference. Consequently, the law must balance technology with evidentiary fairness, ultimately ensuring that the ability to edit does not become an evidentiary advantage for the person altering it.
Authors are fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) students at Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Mumbai. Views are personal.