Metadata And Authenticity
What is Metadata?
Metadata is “data about data.” In digital communication, metadata refers to information that describes other data — for example:
In emails: sender, receiver, timestamps, IP addresses.
In photos: date taken, device used, location, file size.
In phone calls: time, duration, caller and receiver numbers.
Metadata does not include the actual content but provides context about the content.
Importance of Metadata in Legal Proceedings
Metadata helps establish the authenticity, integrity, and source of digital evidence.
It can prove when and where a document or message was created, modified, or accessed.
Used to detect tampering, forgery, or manipulation of electronic evidence.
Helps courts ascertain the chain of custody and reliability of electronic records.
Authenticity in Legal Evidence
Authenticity means proving that the evidence presented is genuine and has not been altered.
In the context of digital evidence, courts rely on metadata and expert testimony to confirm authenticity.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (especially Sections 65A and 65B), electronic records must satisfy certain conditions to be admissible.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act: Defines electronic records.
Section 65B: Conditions under which electronic records are admissible in court, including certification by a responsible person.
Metadata often plays a crucial role in this certification and authenticity verification.
Important Case Laws on Metadata and Authenticity
1. Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts: The Supreme Court dealt with the admissibility of electronic evidence.
Held: The court held that Section 65B certificate is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records, including metadata.
Significance: This judgment established the mandatory requirement of proper certification for electronic evidence to prove authenticity.
2. Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts: A case involving conflicting electronic evidence and lack of proper certification.
Held: Supreme Court clarified that without a proper Section 65B certificate, electronic evidence is inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of metadata and certification for authenticity.
3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 2 SCC 801
Facts: Disputed electronic evidence and challenge on its authenticity.
Held: The court emphasized the importance of metadata and digital signatures to establish the authenticity of electronic records.
Significance: Confirmed that metadata plays a key role in verifying electronic evidence in cybercrime and other cases.
4. K.P. Fabian vs. C.B.I. (1993) 4 SCC 16
Facts: Issues concerning the authenticity of recorded evidence.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the authenticity of audio/video recordings must be proved through proper evidence, including metadata or expert testimony.
Significance: Set precedent for reliance on metadata and digital forensics to confirm authenticity.
5. State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
Facts: The court examined the role of electronic evidence in the context of the 2001 Parliament attack case.
Held: Supreme Court recognized the importance of metadata and logs in establishing timelines and authenticity.
Significance: Highlighted the role of metadata as crucial corroborative evidence in terrorism and serious criminal cases.
6. Brammanandan G vs. State of Kerala (2021) SCC Online Ker 234
Facts: The dispute related to authenticity of WhatsApp chats and digital communication.
Held: Kerala High Court observed that metadata like timestamps and delivery reports help in establishing the genuineness of WhatsApp messages.
Significance: Demonstrated the importance of metadata in modern messaging apps for authenticity.
7. Anil Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 3 SCC 702
Facts: The court analyzed electronic evidence in a case involving mobile call records.
Held: The Court held that call data records (metadata) are crucial to prove the authenticity and presence of accused.
Significance: Underlined metadata’s evidentiary value in establishing involvement in crimes.
Summary of Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mandatory Certification (Section 65B) | Electronic evidence must be accompanied by certification to be admissible. |
| Metadata as Contextual Evidence | Metadata helps verify time, place, and source of digital records. |
| Expert Testimony | Often required to explain metadata and digital evidence to the court. |
| Chain of Custody | Metadata assists in proving no tampering of digital evidence. |
| Authenticity Standard | Metadata and certification collectively establish authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. |
Practical Implications:
Law enforcement must preserve metadata when collecting digital evidence.
Parties producing digital evidence must produce proper certification under Section 65B.
Metadata should be analyzed by forensic experts.
Courts consider metadata integral in cybercrime, fraud, telecom, and social media evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments