Proving Electronic Records Under Section 65B
๐ What is Section 65B?
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was introduced by the Information Technology Act, 2000 to specifically deal with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in Indian courts.
It provides a procedure for proving electronic records, ensuring that such evidence is reliable, authentic, and tamper-proof.
๐ Text of Section 65B (Summary)
When any electronic record is produced as evidence, it shall not be denied admissibility solely because it is in electronic form.
Such evidence must be accompanied by a certificate signed by a person responsible for the management of the device/system.
The certificate must state:
The manner in which the electronic record was produced,
That the device was operating properly,
The time and place of the record,
And other relevant details to prove authenticity.
๐ Why Section 65B is Important?
To validate the authenticity of electronic records (emails, SMS, WhatsApp chats, cloud data, digital signatures, etc.).
To ensure prevention of tampering or fabrication.
To bring electronic evidence on parity with traditional documentary evidence.
To facilitate admissibility without requiring oral evidence of the person who generated the electronic record.
โ๏ธ Landmark Case Laws on Section 65B
โ๏ธ 1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
๐น Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with admissibility of electronic evidence like CDs, computer-generated documents, and WhatsApp chats without a proper 65B certificate.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court held that electronic evidence is inadmissible unless accompanied by a valid Section 65B certificate.
Oral evidence or testimony alone is insufficient.
This decision overruled several earlier judgments where electronic evidence was admitted without the certificate.
โ Importance:
Landmark judgment emphasizing strict compliance with Section 65B.
Made 65B certificate mandatory for electronic records.
โ๏ธ 2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
๐น Facts:
Dispute regarding whether a Section 65B certificate must be produced at the time of filing evidence or can be submitted later.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that the certificate can be produced at any stage of proceedings.
Non-production at initial stage does not make evidence inadmissible.
Reinforced that Section 65B certificate is essential for admissibility.
โ Importance:
Relaxed the procedural rigidness in producing 65B certificate.
Eased practical difficulties in obtaining certificate early.
โ๏ธ 3. K. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
๐น Facts:
Pre-65B case where the Court discussed admissibility of computer-generated evidence.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court laid down conditions for admissibility of computer-generated evidence:
Properly functioning computer system,
Input fed correctly,
Output produced correctly,
System used regularly for the activity.
โ Importance:
Formed the foundation for Section 65B's procedural requirements.
Highlighted importance of reliability and authenticity.
โ๏ธ 4. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
๐น Facts:
Electronic evidence produced without 65B certificate.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court initially allowed some relaxation of strict 65B requirements in the interest of justice.
However, this view was later clarified in Arjun Panditrao to be not a precedent to bypass 65B.
โ Importance:
Shows the tension between strict legal requirements and practical justice.
Led to clarification by the Supreme Court on strict compliance with Section 65B.
โ๏ธ 5. T.T. Antony v. Union of India (2001) 6 SCC 181
๐น Facts:
Dealt with electronic evidence and highlighted the need to prove the conditions of admissibility.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court held that the evidentiary value depends on the reliability of electronic evidence.
Emphasized the need for proper certification and proof of authenticity.
โ Importance:
Early recognition of the importance of reliability in electronic evidence.
Led to the legislative enactment of Section 65B.
โ๏ธ 6. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Amar Singh) (2005) 11 SCC 600
๐น Facts:
Digital evidence like phone records and logs were admitted.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court relied on expert testimony and certification to admit electronic evidence.
This judgment preceded the strict Section 65B requirements but emphasized chain of custody and proper authentication.
โ Importance:
Highlighted importance of chain of custody.
Foundation for later statutory certification requirements.
โ๏ธ 7. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 11 SCC 1
๐น Facts:
Admissibility of email communications and electronic records without 65B certificate was challenged.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 65B certificates for electronic evidence.
Stressed that even emails and social media content require 65B compliance.
โ Importance:
Expanded Section 65B's scope to include modern forms of electronic communication.
๐ง Key Legal Principles under Section 65B
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Certificate mandatory | Without a 65B certificate, electronic evidence cannot be admitted. |
| Certificate content | Must specify device, system condition, manner of production, time, and responsibility. |
| Certificate can be filed late | Arjun Panditrao allows certificate at any stage of trial. |
| Chain of custody important | Ensures data was not tampered with. |
| Oral evidence alone insufficient | Must be supported by statutory certificate. |
๐ Conclusion
Section 65B provides a legal framework to validate and authenticate electronic evidence ensuring reliability and protection against forgery or tampering. The Supreme Court's landmark judgments have:
Made 65B certificates mandatory for electronic evidence.
Allowed flexibility in the timing of submission of certificates.
Expanded the scope of electronic evidence to include emails, social media, cloud data, and more.
Reinforced the principle that law adapts to technology but maintains procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments