Judicial Precedents On Iot Devices As Evidence
1. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court clarified that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records. This decision emphasized the necessity of authenticating electronic evidence through a certificate issued by the person in control of the device from which the data was generated.
Relevance to IoT Devices: In the context of IoT devices, this judgment underscores the requirement for a certificate to authenticate data retrieved from such devices. For instance, data from wearable devices, smart home systems, or connected vehicles must be accompanied by a valid certificate to be admissible in court.
2. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is procedural and can be relaxed if the party producing the electronic evidence is not in possession of the device and cannot secure the certificate.
Relevance to IoT Devices: This judgment provides flexibility in cases involving IoT devices where the party presenting the evidence does not have direct control over the device. For example, if law enforcement retrieves data from a smart meter or a connected vehicle, they may not always be able to produce the certificate. In such cases, the court may consider other evidence to establish the authenticity of the data.
3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court ruled that electronic records, including emails and computer-generated documents, are admissible under Section 65B, provided they are accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4).
Relevance to IoT Devices: This case sets a precedent for the admissibility of electronic records, which extends to data generated by IoT devices. Data logs from IoT devices, such as GPS data from vehicles or health metrics from wearable devices, can be admitted as evidence if they meet the criteria set forth in Section 65B.
4. P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court emphasized that secondary electronic evidence is inadmissible unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4), and this requirement cannot be waived by the court.
Relevance to IoT Devices: This judgment reinforces the necessity of authenticating electronic evidence, including data from IoT devices, through a valid certificate. It highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure the admissibility of such evidence in legal proceedings.
Conclusion:
While specific case laws directly addressing IoT devices as evidence are limited, the principles established in these landmark judgments provide a framework for the admissibility of data generated by IoT devices in Indian courts. The key requirements include:
Authentication: Data from IoT devices must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) to establish its authenticity.
Procedural Flexibility: In certain circumstances, the court may relax the requirement for a certificate if the party presenting the evidence cannot secure it.
Adherence to Legal Framework: Compliance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act is essential for the admissibility of electronic records.
As technology evolves, it is anticipated that Indian courts will develop more specific case laws addressing the nuances of IoT devices and their role as evidence in legal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments