SC: Expert Report ≠ Section 65B Certificate for Electronic Evidence Admissibility
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a key clarification on the admissibility of electronic evidence, the Supreme Court has ruled that an expert report cannot substitute the mandatory Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act. The Court made it clear that for any electronic record—such as emails, CCTV footage, or call records—to be admitted as evidence, a Section 65B certificate is a legal prerequisite, and it cannot be bypassed by simply producing an expert opinion.
Background
- The case involved the admissibility of electronic evidence where parties had furnished a report from an expert to validate data from a digital source, such as a hard drive or mobile phone.
- However, they failed to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, which is required to confirm the authenticity of electronic records generated or stored on digital devices.
- The trial court admitted the evidence based on the expert report, which was later challenged before the Supreme Court.
What Section 65B Requires
- Section 65B(1) makes electronic records admissible only if certain conditions regarding lawful production and authenticity are met.
- Section 65B(4) mandates a written certificate by a person in a responsible position, stating the particulars of the device and process used to generate the data.
- The certificate must also confirm that the data was produced during regular operation and that the device was functioning properly at the time.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
- Expert Report Is Not a Substitute
The Court held that an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act may help in understanding the nature or implications of digital data—but it cannot replace the mandatory certification under Section 65B.
- Authentication Must Be Procedural and Formal
The authenticity of an electronic record must be established through the prescribed legal process, not merely technical assessment by a third party.
- Safeguards Against Tampering
The Court emphasized that the requirement of a Section 65B certificate is not a procedural technicality—it’s a safeguard to ensure that digital evidence is untampered and reliable.
- Binding Precedent from Anvar v. Basheer Reaffirmed
The judgment reiterated the principle laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), where the Supreme Court held that electronic evidence without a Section 65B certificate is inadmissible.
Implications of the Judgment
- Stricter Admissibility Standards
Courts must now strictly adhere to the procedural requirement of obtaining a Section 65B certificate before admitting electronic evidence.
- Legal Teams Must Be Diligent
Litigants and legal professionals must ensure proper certification is obtained when relying on electronic data, whether in civil, criminal, or commercial matters.
- Increased Awareness for Law Enforcement
Investigating agencies will need to follow the correct procedure when collecting digital evidence, especially in cybercrime, fraud, and surveillance-related cases.
- No Backdoor Entry for Digital Evidence
Attempts to introduce electronic records through expert channels without formal certification are likely to be rejected.
Conclusion
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced the foundational legal requirement for admitting electronic evidence—the Section 65B certificate. By rejecting expert reports as a substitute, the Court has closed any ambiguity and upheld the integrity of digital evidence in the justice system. This decision is not only a reaffirmation of earlier precedent but also a clear reminder: when it comes to electronic records, compliance with legal procedure is not optional—it is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments