Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Case Summary: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judgment Date: 14 July 2020
Bench: Justices R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian
Citation: AIR 2020 SC 4908
Background
This case arose from the 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, where Arjun Panditrao Khotkar of the Shiv Sena party narrowly defeated Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal by a margin of 296 votes. Gorantyal filed an election petition challenging Khotkar's election, alleging that certain nomination forms were filed after the prescribed deadline, rendering them invalid. To substantiate these claims, Gorantyal sought to introduce electronic evidence, including WhatsApp messages and video footage, which were crucial to his case.
Legal Issue
The central issue was the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence, and if so, the circumstances under which such a certificate can be dispensed with.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, reaffirming the mandatory nature of the certificate under Section 65B(4) for the admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence. The Court overruled the previous judgments in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801 and Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178, which had diluted this requirement. The Court held that Section 65B constitutes a complete code in itself regarding the admissibility of electronic records and that oral evidence cannot substitute for the certificate specified under Section 65B(4).
However, the Court also recognized practical difficulties in obtaining such certificates, especially when the electronic record is stored on a device not within the control of the party seeking to introduce the evidence. In such cases, the Court allowed for the possibility of applying to the judge for the production of the certificate by the relevant person or authority. The Court emphasized that the certificate must accompany the electronic record at the time of its production in court.
Key Takeaways
Mandatory Certificate: A certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence.
Original Documents: If the original electronic document itself is produced, the certificate requirement is waived.
Application for Certificate: If a party cannot obtain the required certificate, they may apply to the judge for its production by the relevant person or authority.
Directions to Service Providers: The Court directed cellular and internet service providers to maintain Call Detail Records (CDRs) and other relevant records in a segregated and secure manner, as per Section 39 of the Evidence Act, to facilitate their availability during trials.
Legislative Recommendations: The Court recommended that appropriate rules be framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and other relevant statutes to regulate the retention, retrieval, and production of electronic records.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) provides clarity on the admissibility of electronic records in Indian courts. By reaffirming the mandatory nature of the certificate under Section 65B(4), the Court ensures the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence. At the same time, the Court acknowledges the practical challenges in obtaining such certificates and provides a mechanism for parties to seek judicial assistance in such cases. This balanced approach aims to uphold the reliability of electronic evidence while accommodating the realities of modern litigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments