Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, Adv. Mr. Shiv Chopra, Adv. Mr. Ansh Singh Luthra, Adv. Ms. Mohana Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Karan Bahmani, Adv. Ms. Vanya Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aadya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Harmanpreet Singh Arora, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Kataria, Adv. Mr. Kapil Modi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rohit Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dutta, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR Mr. Kapil Modi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rohit Shukla, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mrs. Aishwariya Bahti, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Aakansha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Caveator-in-person, AOR

The ratio decidendi of this case regarding the point about WhatsApp chat and its admissibility is that for an online chat or digital communication to be considered in the context of an offence under the relevant Act, it must meet certain criteria, notably that the communication was made in "public view" or in a manner accessible to the public or third parties. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of a chat or conversation, such as one on WhatsApp, does not automatically qualify as an act committed in "public view" unless it can be shown that the content was accessible or visible to the public or a third party in a manner that satisfies the legal requirement for such offences.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the content of digital messages or chats must be examined intrinsically to determine whether they contain elements that constitute an offence under the law, considering the context and the nature of the communication. If the content does not demonstrate that the communication was made in a manner accessible to the public or in a public place, then it cannot be deemed to have been made in "public view" for the purposes of the offence.

In this case, the Court found that the allegations based on WhatsApp conversations did not sufficiently establish that the messages were made in "public view" or in a manner that would attract the provisions of the relevant Act. The content of the chat, when read in context, did not contain the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence, particularly because the communication was not demonstrated to have been accessible to the public or third parties in a manner that would fulfill the legal requirement.

Thus, the admissibility and consideration of WhatsApp chats hinge on their being made in a manner that satisfies the statutory requirement of "public view," and mere digital communication, without this element, cannot be automatically relied upon to establish an offence under the law.