Does Sharing an Exam Paper on WhatsApp Violate Privacy? Gujarat High Court Clarifies

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that photographing an examination question paper and sharing it via WhatsApp does not constitute a violation of privacy under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In an order passed by Justice P.M. Raval, the Court partially allowed a petition to quash specific charges in a First Information Report (FIR) registered against two brothers, clarifying the legal boundaries of digital privacy and public orders.

Scope of the IT Act and Privacy Violations

The legal dispute stems from an incident in November 2018, when an exam invigilator discovered a candidate using a mobile phone inside an examination hall. The candidate had allegedly photographed the question paper and transmitted the images externally via WhatsApp to his brother, who was subsequently named as a co-accused in the FIR. Telegram Back in India: Service Restored After 7-Day Restriction; Users Elated.

Reviewing the charges, the High Court determined that the statutory provision penalising the unauthorised capture and transmission of private images was entirely inapplicable to examination materials. “What has been sent by the applicant No.2 to applicant No.1 is the photograph of the question paper captured on mobile phone, thus, the act of sending photograph through WhatsApp to his brother cannot be termed as an act of intentionally or knowingly capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of any person, so as to attract Section 66-E of the IT Act, thus, the provisions of Section 66-E being not attracting, the same is also required to be quashed and set aside," the Court stated.

Misapplication of Section 188 IPC

The Court further evaluated the invocation of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The prosecution had argued that violating exam hall regulations, specifically the prohibition against carrying mobile devices, attracted this charge. Justice Raval rejected this interpretation, observing that standard examination guidelines and instructions do not equate to a formal statutory order issued by a public official under Section 188. Furthermore, the Court highlighted a procedural flaw, noting that even if Section 188 were applicable, the law strictly mandates that a formal written complaint must be filed directly by the concerned public servant before a court can initiate proceedings. This legislative requirement was not fulfilled in the present case. WhatsApp Trust Warning Feature Rolls Out on iOS and Android to Flag Unknown, High-Risk Numbers.

Partial Quashing of the FIR

During the hearings, the State prosecutor conceded that both Section 66E of the IT Act and Section 188 of the IPC were incorrectly applied to the facts of the case. Consequently, the High Court officially set aside and quashed the charges under those two specific provisions. However, the bench clarified that the underlying FIR remains active, allowing the ongoing investigation to proceed regarding any other statutory offences or cheating allegations that may be established by the evidence.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 25, 2026 05:40 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).