INTRODUCTION
Language never stops evolving, but the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” remains as relevant as ever[1]. The digital communication revolution has been transforming how we express ourselves. From using Emails to instant messaging, conversations are now starting to get punctuated with emojis. Emojis are little digital icons that we use in our daily online interactions to symbolise our feelings, things, or concepts. These are frequently utilised to express our humour and tone, which could otherwise be missed in the plain text. In September 2024, Unicode 16.0 was released, and now, there are 3,790 emojis in the Unicode Standard[2].
But as we live in a world of legal compliance, can emojis claim to be a legally relevant expression?
While many foreign countries like the U.S. and Israel have begun dealing with this question, Indian jurisprudence remains silent. With emojis appearing in almost everything nowadays, India’s legal system must confront the ambiguity of this newly spread digital expression.
UNDERSTANDING EMOJIS AS COMMUNICATION
Emojis are sometimes considered a millennial and younger generation’s communication tool. In reality, everyone can use emojis. Emojis are used to convey ideas, food, animals, facial expressions, and other subtextual information. Emojis were created in 1999 in Japan and have since spread across the globe.[3] Their use expanded with the addition of virtual keyboards to the standard international emoji keyboard.
New emojis are available every year, giving users additional choices for subtlety and variety in their messages. The Unicode Consortium—a non-profit organisation that upholds text standards across computers—carefully chooses which emojis to use. Every icon undergoes testing and revisions to guarantee that the finished product accurately represents the action, phrase, or object.
Even though it seems that the emojis are very simple to understand, they are a way to express our emotions. There can be issues in the interpretation of emojis.
For example, Varda said the “thumbs up” is among the most popular and widely agreed-upon meanings. “Some older emoji users think of the thumbs-up emoji as conveying ‘I agree,’ ‘good work’ or ‘it’s a plan!’ – while younger emoji users understand the same emoji as denoting a passive-aggressive, sarcastic or even outright rude response.”[4]
GLOBAL LEGAL TRENDS ON EMOJIS
With the increasing use of emojis every year, they are becoming more and more common in legal documents. Judges and attorneys deal with situations where emojis are essential for determining context, intent, and emotion. There are intriguing problems regarding the legal significance and admissibility of emojis as evidence because they have been used in contracts, employment disputes, criminal trials, and even intellectual property litigation.
Courts in Canada, Israel, and the U.S. have ruled that emojis can signal binding agreements. In South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd[5], the farmer was ordered to pay $82,000 in damages for the breach of contract after the court determined that using the “thumbs up” emoji may be considered a legitimate acceptance. According to Justice Keene, the emoji was a “digital nod”, just like a signature.
Similarly, the Tel Aviv Small Claims Court in Israel decided in the Dahan v. Shacharoff[6] case that a couple’s text message exchanges with a landlord that included a series of favourable emojis were part of the agreement, indicating the intention to rent an apartment. The landlord removed the apartment from the market because he thought the renter would rent it based on the encouraging messages. Later, the potential tenants vanished. When the couple broke their agreement, the landlord filed a lawsuit against them for over $3,000. The landlord was given damages by Judge Amir Weizebbluth, who noted that the positive emojis, which included a cheerful face, a bottle of champagne, dancing figures, and more, showed an intent to do business.
Citing the online lexicon “Emojipedia,” Justice Gibson stated in the seminal case of Burrows v. Houda[7] that the “zipper mouth emoji” signifies a “secret” or “stop talking.” The court noted that people worldwide could quickly obtain the material, which hurt holding the defendant accountable and harmed Burrow’s reputation and legal career.
Similarly, the question of whether it is trivial to penalise someone for using an emoji was addressed by the US District Court in Rebecca Bellue v. East Baton Rouge Sheriff[8]. In this case, the Honourable Court noted that “sharing a “winking” emoji after making a comment about a colleague’s appearance or sending a heart emoji with a “Good Morning” message to an employee constitutes sexual harassment at work.”
On April 3, 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the United Kingdom noted in Stocker v. Stocker[9] that emojis have a considerable defamatory potential when used with text. A succession of furious face emojis next to defamatory words was argued to intensify the aim to defame.
THE INDIAN LEGAL VACUUM: EMOJIS IN A GREY ZONE
Indian digital revolution has outpaced its legal framework, leaving emojis in a jurisprudential void. Despite their daily use in personal and professional communication, there is no significant Indian case law or legislation that deals with this issue directly. This absence of clarity creates uncertainty in a country where emojis frequently appear in contracts, disputes and criminal complaints.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sunder ruled in the 2018 case of I. Linga Bhasker v. State of Tamil Nadu[10], declaring no cognisable offence was discovered on the face of the complaint and ordering the FIR to be quashed. The Court noted that everyone has the unalienable freedom to communicate their thoughts and feelings, and that the usage of emojis did not reach the legal threshold for sexual harassment, defamation, discrimination, or the transmission of harmful content in this particular case. This ruling emphasised how crucial context, intent, and changing legal interpretations are when resolving conflicts involving technology and digital communication.
Unlike in Canada or the U.S., the Supreme Court has not analysed the emojis as binding expressions, where they are increasingly treated as evidence of intent. There are instances where these emoji cases in lower courts are dismissed as ‘non-serious’ and insufficient to establish content.
While India lacks specific laws that deal directly with emojis, some existing statutes offer indirect guidance. In the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[11], a provision under Section 65 B[12] concerns the admissibility of electronic court records. While emojis don’t perfectly come under it, digital messages qualify as electronic records and are admissible if properly authenticated. However, courts struggle to interpret this. The Supreme Court streamlined the guidelines for electronic evidence in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh[13] (2018). Still, it left emojis unaddressed and up to judges to determine their context.
Similarly, in the IT Act, 2000, Section 67[14] criminalises transmitting obscene material electronically. But there is no clear guidance about emojis like ‘Peach’ or ‘eggplant’ being deemed obscene.
According to Section 499[15], of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses defamation, using the laughing emoji in public may be construed as defamatory since it makes fun of someone. Still, there is no such case that tests this provision. Similarly, section 503[16], which deals with criminal intimidation, states that a knife or skull emoji in a threatening message might qualify, but prosecutors must prove the intent first.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court interpreted the “thumbs up” emoji in the context of Director General, Railway Protection Force v. Narendra Chauhan[17], noting that it may potentially be taken as a substitute for the word “ok.” Therefore, the Honourable Court pointed out that sharing the aforementioned emoji symbol only indicated that he had seen the message and did not amount to celebrating the murder. As a result, the court ordered that his employment be reinstated.
There is a clear need in India to develop jurisprudence that can deal with emojis to address the evolving landscape of online communication. As emojis are increasingly used in contracts, criminal matters and legal proceedings, understanding their meaning and legal significance has become even more critical.
CONCLUSION
Emojis have transformed themselves from their origin as playful digital icon into one of the most powerful tools of expression. They are capable of conveying our consent, intent or even threats. These digital icons have become so valuable in today’s generation that they are used in daily conversations and even formal agreements. Yet, even after such popularisation, India’s legal system remains silent in decoding its meaning.
Global precedents from Canada and the U.S. prove these symbols hold great legal significance. Meanwhile, India’s judges, lawyers, and citizens still wander in a grey area when defining emojis. Various legal reforms or judicial guidelines can help treat emojis as contextual evidence and create digital literacy among legal practitioners. It’s time for India to establish standards for the interpretation of emojis. As we all know, our language is evolving, so must our law.
Author(s) Name: Pratishtha Singh (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow)
References:
[1] ZoomInfo, “30 Emoji Statistics for Businesses” (ZoomInfo, 2020) <https://pipeline.zoominfo.com/marketing/emoji-statistics-for-businesses> accessed 7 May 2025
[2] Emojipedia, “Emoji Statistics” (Emojipedia, 2024) <https://emojipedia.org/stats> accessed 7 May 2025
[3] Kat Hodgins, “When Words Aren’t Enough: The Power of Using Emojis in Communications” (This Is LD, 9 March 2023) <https://thisisld.com/blog/when-words-arent-enough-the-power-of-emojis-in-communications/> accessed 7 May 2025
[4] Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, “More Than Just a Smiley Face: How Emojis Can Affect Communication” (Baylor University, 17 July 2024) <https://news.web.baylor.edu/news/story/2024/more-just-smiley-face-how-emojis-can-affect-communication> accessed 7 May 2025
[5] South West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land & Cattle Ltd (2023) SKKB 116 (CanLII)
[6] Dahan v Shacharoff (2017) File No 30823-08-16
[7] Burrows v Houda (2020) NSWDC 485
[8] Rebecca Bellue v. East Baton Rouge Sheriff (2018) ET AL
[9] Stocker v Stocker (2019) UKSC 17
[10] I Linga Bhaskar v The State Through The Inspector Of Police (2018) AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 273 (Madras HC)
[11] Indian Evidence Act 1872
[12] Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 65(b)
[13] Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh [2018] 2 SCC 801
[14] Information Technology Act 2000, s 67
[15] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499
[16] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 503
[17] Director General, Railway Protection Force v Narender Chauhan [2024] W.A. (MD) No. 118 of 2024 (Madras HC)
