Presumptions Regarding Electronic Records
Legal Context
With the rise of digital communication and electronic data, the Indian legal system had to adapt to recognize and regulate electronic records as evidence in courts.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), especially Section 85A to 85U, along with
Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
have laid down the framework for the admissibility and presumptions relating to electronic records.
What Are Presumptions Regarding Electronic Records?
In law, a presumption is a conclusion that the court accepts as true until disproved.
The IT Act and Evidence Act provide certain presumptions that facilitate easier acceptance of electronic records as evidence, while balancing the need to prevent misuse.
Key Sections Providing Presumptions
Section 85A, IT Act: Presumption as to the integrity of electronic records if maintained as per the law.
Section 85B, IT Act: Presumption that electronic signature is affixed by the person.
Section 65B, Evidence Act: Provides conditions under which electronic records are admissible and presumes the integrity and authenticity of such records.
Section 90A, Evidence Act: Presumption as to documents produced by computers.
Section 79A-79C, IT Act: Presumption of electronic agreements and contracts.
Important Case Laws on Presumptions Regarding Electronic Records
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
A dispute over the admissibility of electronic evidence in court without complying with Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Issue:
Whether electronic records are admissible as evidence without the certificate mandated under Section 65B(4).
Held:
The Supreme Court held that electronic evidence cannot be admitted without complying with Section 65B. The certificate provided under this section is mandatory and essential for the evidence to be admissible.
Significance:
The Court emphasized the importance of authenticity and integrity of electronic records and clarified the mandatory nature of the Section 65B certificate.
2. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts:
Electronic evidence was tendered without proper certification under Section 65B.
Issue:
Whether electronic evidence can be admitted without certification if authenticity is not disputed.
Held:
The Supreme Court gave a pragmatic approach, stating that where the authenticity of the electronic evidence is not disputed and no prejudice is caused, courts may admit such evidence even without the Section 65B certificate.
Significance:
This judgment softened the rigid Anvar P.V. rule by allowing judicial discretion in admitting electronic records in appropriate cases.
3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600
Facts:
Video recordings were submitted as evidence in a criminal case.
Issue:
Reliability and authenticity of electronic evidence.
Held:
The Supreme Court stressed the need to ensure electronic evidence is tamper-proof and authentic before it is admitted.
Significance:
Though not directly about Section 65B, it laid down principles of scrutiny and caution in electronic evidence, forming the basis for later rulings on electronic records’ presumptions.
4. M.K. Mani v. Union of India, (2019) SCC Online SC 1939
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the non-admissibility of electronic evidence due to lack of Section 65B certificate.
Issue:
Whether procedural non-compliance should exclude electronic records outright.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated Anvar P.V., confirming that Section 65B compliance is essential, but procedural rules can be relaxed if authenticity is clear and no prejudice is caused.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the importance of Section 65B, balancing strict adherence with practical justice.
5. State of Gujarat v. Krishna Ram Mahale, (2018) 7 SCC 1
Facts:
Mobile phone call records and electronic evidence were central to the prosecution.
Issue:
Whether call data records are presumptively authentic.
Held:
The Court accepted call data records as presumptive evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, provided they meet conditions of certification and authenticity.
Significance:
Clarified that electronic communication records like call data can carry strong presumptions of truth.
6. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 2 SCC 55
Facts:
An issue relating to electronic evidence in a property dispute.
Issue:
Whether printouts of electronic records without certificate are admissible.
Held:
The Supreme Court reinforced mandatory compliance with Section 65B, and held that certified electronic records enjoy a presumption of genuineness and authenticity.
Significance:
Strengthened the principle that properly certified electronic records are accorded prima facie presumption of correctness.
Summary of Presumptions
| Type of Presumption | Legal Provision | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Electronic signature affixed by the person | Section 85B, IT Act | Presumed valid unless disproved |
| Electronic record maintained with integrity | Section 85A, IT Act | Presumed genuine and untampered |
| Electronic records and data produced by computer | Section 65B, Evidence Act | Presumed authentic if certified |
| Computer output and electronic agreements | Section 90A, Evidence Act & Section 79A, IT Act | Presumed genuine and valid |
Conclusion
Electronic records are recognized as primary evidence if they meet procedural and certification requirements.
Presumptions facilitate easier admissibility but do not override the right to challenge authenticity.
Courts emphasize a balance between technology acceptance and safeguarding justice.
Recent case laws show a mature judicial approach, combining strict rules with practical discretion to ensure fair trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments