Author: Syed Tauheed, Vidyavardhaka Law College, Mysuru
To the Point
India’s rapidly growing digital communication and technological dependence have elevated electronic records as the core of civil and criminal litigation. Electronic evidence, be it emails, WhatsApp messages, or CCTV videos, posts on social media, or digital banking logs, can become the key to deciding the resolution of a conflict. Such evidence is however strictly regulated by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). This part establishes the procedural and substantive conditions of admissibility of electronic evidence in court. This is the legal standpoint, which has been established in a number of landmark judgments, although in practice there are still challenges.
Use of Legal Jargon
The admissibility of electronic records as a special provision on admissibility of Section 65B of the IEA is as a recognition of being second hand sweat in accessories in the form of evidence with attendant statutory protections. According to the provision, electronic records when presented in court shall contain a certificate according to Section 65B(4). This certificate must:
1. Get the name of the electronic record in which the statement is kept.
2. Explain how the record was made.
3. Give details of the machine used in the manufacturing.
4. contained in a signature by a responsible official in charge of the device or of its functioning.
These requirements are justified in Jurisprudential terms by the need to ascertain the authenticity, integrity and reliability of electronic evidence. Unless done strictly, such records are in danger of being invalidated as inadmissible.
The Proof
Difference Electronic evidence is contrasted to traditional types of documentary evidence. The digital data is very prone to control, modification, and interference, unlike written documents. Strict adherence to the procedural safeguards is, therefore, required in courts in order to reach an evidentiary credibility.
Section 65B (1) provides that any electronic record information that is printed, stored, or recorded shall be treated as a document admissible in evidence, without additional evidence of the original, of conditions in Section 65B(2) are fulfilled. According to these conditions, it is highlighted that:
It needs to have been used on a regular basis.
Information was to have been enterred into the computer as normal to activities.
The computer ought to have been in good operation.
The copy should be an accurate copy of the original.
The interpretation of 65B(4) certificate in practise has on numerous occasions raised debate in courts on whether adherence to 65B(4) certificate is not subject to relaxation in special circumstances. This has hands-on evolved jurisprudence being formed with the impact of the Supreme Court.
Abstract
The paper makes a critical analysis as regards to the admissibility of e-evidence concerning Section 65B of except the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It follows the intent of its enactment in the law with the Information Technology Act, 2000, the judicial interpretations in high profile cases and the practical issues which have confronted litigants. Although Section 65B is expected to maintain authenticity and forestall abuses on electronic records, its strict enforcement in most cases may result in omission of key evidence. There is the increasing balancing of procedural compliance requirements and the philosophy of fair trial and justice administration in courts. The article wraps up by offering the reforms to advocate a more practical approach of electronic evidence in India.
Case Laws
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) -The Attack on the Parliament.
Including evidence as an electronic evidence have been noted by the Supreme Court to be admissible in the form of Section 63 and 65 of the IEA in notwithstanding a certificate as does not comply with the requirement of Section 65B. This liberation interpretation was in a position whereby the call records could be introduced by oral evidence of witnesses. But, this precedent left some ambiguity on whether or not Section 65B was to be mandatory.
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
An authoritative ruling in which the Supreme Court quashed Navjot Sandhu on the ground that a certificate is validated in relation to admissibility of electronic records under required Section 65B. It made clear that oral evidence or any other forms of evidence are not capable of replacing the statutory requirement of a certificate.
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
The Court softened the strict policy that the certificate must be overlooked by the situation whereby the party providing evidence, (e.g., a CCTV footage, where the footage is controlled by a third person), does not need to be in possession of the device. This established a right and left exception to Anvar P.V..
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. As Suslak cited, this concept emerged during the 1990s in the United States.<|human|>Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
The confusion was eliminated officially when a Constitution Bench re-established the mandatory nature of 65B cert that was not relevant where the device is not in the possession of the party seeking resort to the evidence. Where this happens, proper directions may be obtained by the court, under Section 91 of the CrPC or Indian Evidence Act to state the certificate.
Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
The Court emphasized the importance of the evidences produced by CCTV video recording, and highlighted that the failure of the prosecution to produce electronic evidence might compromise its arguments. The fact in this case is that there is an increasing dependence of courts on digital evidence.
Conclusion
The issue regarding the admissibility of electronics evidenceenforcement following Section 65B of the IEA is one of the most controversial dilemmas of Indian jurisprudence. Although the judiciary has made it clear that the 65B certificate is mandatory in nature, there are still practical challenges facing the 65B certificate, particularly, where the electronic records are stored by third parties like telecommunications companies, banks or other online platforms. Procedural and substantive justice strike a fine line as on the one hand, it is important that courts not shut out or lock out any real electronic evidence on technical grounds and yet on the other hand, wrongful fabricated electronic and digital evidence cannot be justified.
Other legislative changes in the future might make certification easier, become more intermediated by digital authenticity-verification data, and increase the responsibilities taken by the custodians of electronically stored information. In a world where digital tracks are at the heart of fact establishment special focus on building a practical stance on matters of electronic evidence is critical in supporting the right to justice, fair trial and systemic judicialness.
FAQS
1. What is Section 65B of India Evidence Act?
The provision under 65B offers the law on acceptance of the electronic records as evidence. It must confirm to 65B(2)-conditions and must confirm to 65B(4)-certificate to confirm authenticity.
2. Does a Section 65B certificate have to be obligatory in all circumstances?
Yes, according to Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the certificate is obligatory unless the party that errs it do not have possession of the electronic device that they err. The court may in such instances order the custodian to give the certificate.
3. Is it sayable that oral evidence can serve to establish electronic evidence without the certificate?
There is no, there is no way that oral testimony could substitute the statutory obligation of Section 65B. Courts have made it clear that in the case of electronic evidence, only the section concretely helps to legally provide such evidence in court.
4. What is the case when the electronics device is deliberated of by a third party?
When the possession of the evidence is of a third party (such as telecom companies, banks, or service providers), then the party may seek the felicitous common sense to invoke the make-request of the court to appear to summon the custodian to present the Section 65B certificate.
5. How can Section 65B be relevant in the present day litigation?
Through cyberspace, most of the communication and every transaction occurs online making electronic evidence to be the foundation of the law suit arena. Section 65B makes certain that these files are believable, genuine and not manipulated prior to the appearance in the courtroom.
