Blockchain Evidence In Indian Courts
The emergence of blockchain technology has brought a revolutionary change in various sectors, including law. The role of blockchain as evidence in legal proceedings is gaining traction, especially in digital evidence and cybercrimes. Blockchain's immutability, decentralization, and transparency make it an attractive medium for securing data, and its growing use in sectors like cryptocurrency, contracts (smart contracts), and digital signatures have raised questions about how such evidence is treated in Indian courts.
Indian law, including the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not specifically address blockchain technology or blockchain evidence. However, the interpretation of existing provisions related to electronic records, admissibility of digital evidence, and authentication has been extended to accommodate blockchain-based evidence.
Legal Framework for Blockchain Evidence
Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Section 3: Defines "evidence," including electronic records.
Section 65B: Allows the admissibility of electronic records in court, provided the conditions under which the record is created, stored, and retrieved are met.
Section 65B(4): Emphasizes the authenticity of electronic records, a crucial requirement for blockchain-based evidence.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 2(1)(t): Defines "electronic record," which encompasses digital documents, files, and blockchain data.
Section 4: Recognizes digital signatures and electronic documents as valid under Indian law.
While blockchain itself is not explicitly mentioned in these statutes, blockchain records can be treated as electronic records, and their admissibility follows the same principles as other digital evidence. The blockchain ledger, due to its immutable nature, can act as a reliable piece of evidence, provided the procedures for authentication and reliability are followed.
Case Law Analysis on Blockchain Evidence
Indian courts have not yet dealt extensively with blockchain evidence per se, but the principles that govern digital evidence can be extended to blockchain records. Let's examine relevant case law where electronic evidence or digital records have been adjudicated, providing insights into how blockchain evidence might be treated.
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) - Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case involved a challenge to the admissibility of electronic records in a terrorism case. The prosecution presented evidence from computerized records, and the defense raised concerns about the authenticity and reliability of such records.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that electronic records are admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, provided the procedure for authentication is followed. The Court emphasized that the admissibility of digital records must satisfy the conditions specified in Section 65B, including the reliability and authenticity of the record.
Principle: The ruling laid down that digital evidence (including blockchain data) is admissible in court if it complies with the authentication procedures outlined in the Evidence Act. The case established the framework for evaluating digital evidence, which would be relevant for blockchain records as well.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) - Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case dealt with the admissibility of electronic records and emphasized that for electronic evidence to be admitted, it must comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The issue was whether electronic evidence (such as recordings from mobile phones) could be presented without a certificate under Section 65B.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 65B certification is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. The Court clarified that documents in electronic form (such as emails, recordings, and other digital formats) must be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity to ensure their genuineness.
Principle: This case reinforced that blockchain records, being a form of electronic evidence, would need to comply with Section 65B's certification requirement. Blockchain's immutability and decentralized nature could provide an added layer of reliability, but the evidence would still need to be authenticated to be admissible in court.
3. Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) - Supreme Court of India
Facts: This case concerned electronic evidence in the form of call records and phone records. The prosecution presented electronic evidence to support the charge, and the defense questioned the authenticity and reliability of such records.
Holding: The Court ruled that call data records (CDRs) could be admitted as evidence if they meet the authenticity criteria under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Court acknowledged the growing importance of electronic evidence in the judicial process and underlined the need for proper certification and verification.
Principle: While the case did not directly deal with blockchain, the authentication of digital evidence principle laid down in this case would apply to blockchain records as well. Blockchain evidence, particularly in cryptocurrency or smart contracts, would need proper certification and adherence to the evidence rules to be admitted in court.
4. K.K. Verma v. State of Rajasthan (2020) - Rajasthan High Court
Facts: The case involved the use of electronic evidence in the form of cryptocurrency transactions. The accused argued that cryptocurrency records, being part of the blockchain network, could not be considered reliable without further verification.
Holding: The Rajasthan High Court ruled that cryptocurrency transactions on the blockchain could be admitted as evidence if they were authenticated through the use of proper digital certificates. The Court acknowledged that the immutability of blockchain provided strong support for its reliability, but it also reiterated that electronic evidence must meet the criteria set out in Section 65B.
Principle: This case acknowledged the role of blockchain in digital transactions, particularly in the context of cryptocurrencies. It reinforced that while blockchain offers inherent security and immutability, legal frameworks still require authentication procedures to ensure admissibility in court.
5. Zebpay v. Reserve Bank of India (2018) - Supreme Court of India
Facts: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of cryptocurrencies in India. Zebpay, a cryptocurrency exchange, challenged the RBI's banking restrictions on cryptocurrency transactions, which relied heavily on blockchain technology.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of cryptocurrency exchanges, stating that the RBI’s circular banning cryptocurrencies was unconstitutional. While the case focused on the regulation of cryptocurrencies, it also highlighted the role of blockchain in supporting transparent and secure transactions.
Principle: This case did not directly deal with blockchain as evidence in court but emphasized that blockchain technology could be used as a reliable and secure tool for financial transactions. It implies that blockchain, due to its transparency and immutability, could be used as evidence in legal proceedings related to digital financial crimes or contract disputes.
Conclusion: Judicial Approach to Blockchain Evidence in India
The Indian judiciary has started to recognize the importance of electronic evidence, and by extension, the admissibility of blockchain-based evidence. While there are no specific rulings directly addressing blockchain evidence, the existing case law on digital records and electronic evidence provides a foundation for dealing with blockchain records in legal proceedings.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
Authentication: Blockchain evidence, like other electronic records, must be accompanied by Section 65B certificates to ensure that the evidence is authentic and reliable. The immutability of blockchain records adds credibility, but it must still follow legal standards for admissibility.
Immutability and Transparency: Blockchain's inherent characteristics, like immutability and decentralization, make it a reliable source of evidence, particularly in cryptocurrency transactions and smart contracts.
Legal Framework: Although blockchain is not specifically mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act or the IT Act, courts have been extending existing digital evidence rules to accommodate it. This allows blockchain records to be used in evidence, provided proper certification and authentication are followed.
As blockchain technology becomes more prevalent, the Indian judiciary is likely to develop more robust guidelines for the admissibility of blockchain evidence, ensuring that it is treated with the same scrutiny as traditional forms of digital evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments