The Legal Status of Digital Evidence in Indian Courts: Challenges of Admissibility and Authentication

Author: Riddhi Vichare, SVKMs NMIMS, K.P. Mehta School of Law.

To the point

The growing dependence on technology has brought digital evidence to the forefront of criminal and civil litigation in India. Whether it’s call records, CCTV footage, emails, social media messages, or metadata, digital evidence plays a crucial role in modern courtrooms. However, its admissibility and authentication under Indian Law, particularly under the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, remain complex and often contested. This article explores the primary legal framework governing digital evidence, analyses significant judicial rulings, and identifies the ongoing challenges that hinder effective justice delivery.
India’s legal system is still adapting to the dynamic and fast-evolving nature of digital technologies. The judiciary has often struggled with the technical complexities involved in the verification, preservation, and presentation of electronic records. Despite repeated judicia guidance, law enforcement agencies and legal professionals continue to face hurdles in handling digital evidence due to a lack of infrastructure, training, and standard protocols.

Abstract.

Digital evidence is indispensable in today’s legal ecosystem, yet its legal treatment in India presents notable challenges. The procedural requirement under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the interplay with the IT Act, 2000, govern its admissibility. Although the judiciary has clarified some ambiguities through landmark judgements, issues related to certification, authenticity, and manipulation persist.
This article seeks to examine the emerging jurisprudence on digital evidence, focusing on legislative intent, practical limitations, and possible reforms. As courts grapple with rapid technological changes, there is an urgent need for legislative clarity, updated training for legal practitioners, and infrastructural improvements. Ensuring that digital evidence is collected, stored, and presented reliably will strengthen India’s commitment to justice, fairness, and due process.
Moreover, it is imperative to align procedural laws with international standards such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, even though India is not a signatory. Doing so would encourage cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies and enable seamless access to cross-border electronic records. Thus, legal reforms must go beyond domestic statutes and consider the globalized nature of digital crimes.

Use of Legal Jargon.

Digital evidence, legally referred to as “electronic records”, is governed by Section 65A and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The term ‘admissibility’ denotes whether a piece of evidence is legally acceptable for presentation in a court of law. Section 65B mandates a certificate of authenticity when electronic records are submitted as secondary evidence, detailing how the evidence was produced and ensuring that it remained unaltered. The certificate must meet statutory conditions to confirm the integrity and originality of the evidence.
Other legal concepts include ‘chain of custody’ (the documented history of the evidence’s control), ‘metadata’ (information about the data such as time and origin), ‘digital signatures’ (cryptographic methods used to ensure authenticity), and ‘non-repudiation’ (preventing denial of actions). Courts also use terms like ‘hashing algorithms’ to verify data integrity, and ‘cloud forensics’ when data is stored online. These terms are essential in interpreting whether the digital evidence can withstand judicial scrutiny.
The requirement of such technical standards aims to uphold the rule of law, ensure fairness, and prevent miscarriage of justice. Moreover, doctrines like ‘res gestae’ (events forming part of the same transaction), and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ are crucial when considering the weight of digital evidence in criminal proceedings
The Proof.

Digital evidence has increasingly become critical in prosecution and defense strategies. In several criminal trials, including cybercrime, financial frauds, and even violent crimes, electronic records serve as key evidence. However, the admissibility hurdle lies in fulfilling Section 65B, especially in the absence of proper certification. Many cases have faltered due to procedural lapses or lack of technical understanding.
In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Supreme Court reiterated that submitting a Section 65B certificate is compulsory for electronic evidence, except when the original device is brought before the court.This ruling cleared earlier ambiguities left by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), emphasizing that mere printouts or copies of electronic records without certification cannot be relied upon.
Challenges also arise due to tampering risks, data manipulation, cloud-based storage, and the absence of standard forensic protocols. Courts often rely on expert witness and cyber forensic labs, but their reports too require rigorous cross-verification. The delays in obtaining expert opinions and poor infrastructure in digital forensics further complicate timely justice.
For example, in various corporate fraud investigations, emails and digital transaction logs become pieces of evidence. If these are not accompanied by a proper certificate, they lose their probative value. Additionally, electronic evidence stored on servers outside India can lead to jurisdictional complications, raising questions under mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs).
The Information Technology Act, 2000 supplements the Evidence Act, providing legal recognition to digital signatures and electronic records. However, the Act lacks specific procedural guidelines for forensic handling, increasing dependency on judicial interpretation and expert testimony. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal and CERT-In play important roles in the administrative oversight, yet their involvement in court proceedings remains limited.


Case Laws.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
The Supreme Court held that Section 65B certificate is a mandatory requirement for admissibility of secondary electronic records. The decision settled the legal confusion created by earlier judgement.

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
This case overruled State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu and held that oral evidence cannot prove electronic records and the section 65B compliance is essential.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005).
In this terrorism-related case, the Court permitted electronic evidence without Section 65B certification, but this precedent was later narrowed in Anvar’s case.

Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015).
The Court emphasized the importance of CCTV footage and criticized the failure to present it, stressing the probative value of digital evidence.

Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006).
The Court recognized the probative value of video recordings in establishing the accused’s guilt and emphasized the necessity of preserving the chain of custody to ensure their reliability.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018).
Initially relaxed the Section 65B requirement but was later overruled by Arjun Panditrao. It serves as a reference for the evolving judicial approach.




Conclusion

Digital evidence has the power to strengthen justice delivery by providing irrefutable, time-stamped, and location-based proof. However, in India, its legal efficacy is contingent upon procedural compliance with Section 65B. Courts, lawyers, and law enforcement must work in synergy with cyber forensic experts to ensure proper collection, preservation, and presentation of electronic records.
Judicial awareness has improved, yet many trial courts remain unprepared to tackle the intricacies of digital records. The absence of specialized cybercrime benches, overburdened forensic labs, and untrained investigators continues to limit the practical enforcement of legal standards.
The judiciary has made strides in clarifying the law, but challenges remain due to outdated laws, lack of training, and resource constraints. Legislative bodies must urgently reform the Indian Evidence Act and IT Act to include digital evidence-specific provisions. These must address cloud data, encrypted communication, blockchain logs, and artificial intelligence-based evidence.
Further, creating a central regulatory body to oversee digital evidence protocols, offering training to judges and prosecutors, and enhancing inter-agency cooperation will significantly improve digital justice delivery.

FAQS

Q1. What is digital evidence in legal terms?
Digital evidence refers to any information stored or transmitted in digital form that may be used in a court of law. Examples include emails, CCTV footage, social media messages, and metadata.

Q2. Is Section 65B certificate mandatory for all electronic records?
Yes, as per the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, Section 65B certification is mandatory for admissibility unless the original device is produced.

Q3. Can a WhatsApp chat be used as evidence in court?
Yes, but only if it is accompanied by a valid Section 65B certificate verifying how the data was extracted and ensuring its authenticity.

Q4. Who issues the Section 65B certificate?
It can be issued by any person who has lawful control over the computer or device and is in a position to provide details of its operation and output.

Q5. What happens if there is no Section 65B certificate?
Without the certificate, the court may refuse to admit the electronic record as evidence unless the original device is physically produced and examined.

Q6. Can courts reject electronic evidence?
Yes, if the evidence is not properly authenticated or fails to comply with the legal provisions under the Evidence Act.

Q7. What reforms are needed in the law of digital evidence?
Legal reforms should include simplified certification processes, forensic guidelines, judicial training, and alignment of the Evidence Act with technological advancements.

Q9. Can emails and digital signatures serve as primary evidence?
Yes, if the original email or document with a valid digital signature is submitted along with proper certification, it may be treated as primary evidence.

Q10. What is the future of digital evidence in Indian law?
The future depends on legal reforms, awareness campaigns, and infrastructure development. With increased cybercrime, the judiciary must adapt to accept AI-generated content, IoT data, and blockchain logs as admissible evidence with clear protocols.