Supreme Court Ruling on the Admissibility of Electronic Records: A Comprehensive Summary under Section 65B IEA and 63 of BSA Certificate
In the landmark judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian dealt with the critical issue of the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case involved a reference to reconsider the interpretation of Section 65B(4) and the conflicting judgments in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018).
The key point in contention was whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records, or if it could be dispensed with in the interest of justice. The Court ruled that the certificate is indeed a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records, clarifying the scope and requirement of such a certificate, and issuing general directions regarding the handling and preservation of electronic evidence. This ruling reaffirmed the principles laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), while expressly overruling the judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018).
Key Highlights of the Judgment
1. Mandatory Requirement of Certificate under Section 65B(4)
The Court upheld the judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and held that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records. It emphasized that the certificate is a condition precedent to the admissibility of any electronic evidence and cannot be dispensed with, as erroneously clarified in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018).
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): The Court in this case held that an electronic record cannot be admitted as evidence without a certificate under Section 65B(4).
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018): In this case, the Division Bench had erroneously “clarified” that the certificate requirement could be relaxed in the interest of justice, particularly in cases where the party seeking to produce the electronic record did not possess the device.
The Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar expressly overruled the judgment in Shafhi Mohammad, holding that the interpretation regarding the relaxation of the certificate requirement was incorrect. The Bench noted that if the party is unable to obtain the certificate, they can make an application to the Judge to summon the necessary person to produce the certificate under Section 65B(4).
2. Clarification on Production of Original Electronic Records
The Court clarified that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is not required if the original electronic record is produced as primary evidence. For example, if the owner of the electronic device, such as a laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, where the data is originally stored, steps into the witness box and proves ownership and operation of the device, the electronic record can be admitted without the certificate.
However, if the electronic record is part of a larger computer system or network, where it is impractical to physically produce the device in court, then the electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B(1) and must be accompanied by the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).
3. Stage for Furnishing the Certificate
The judgment also clarified that Section 65B does not specify when the certificate must be furnished to the Court. However, the Court emphasized that the certificate must ideally accompany the electronic record when it is produced in evidence. If the certificate is not provided or is defective, the trial judge must summon the person responsible for providing the certificate to rectify the situation.
In criminal trials, the Court underscored the principle that all documents that the prosecution relies upon, including electronic records, must be furnished to the accused before the trial commences as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
4. Directions to Cellular Companies and Internet Service Providers
The Bench issued general directions to telecom companies and internet service providers to preserve Call Detail Records (CDRs) and other relevant data in compliance with Section 39 of the Evidence Act. The records must be stored securely and segregated if they are seized during investigations. These directions are critical to ensure that electronic records are readily available during the defense or cross-examination phases in criminal trials.
5. Framing Rules Under Section 67C of the Information Technology Act
In line with its observations, the Court directed the government to formulate rules for:
The preservation and retrieval of electronic records during trials.
The retention of metadata and the maintenance of chain-of-custody records to avoid tampering.
Ensuring that such records are available for the entire duration of the trial and appeals.
The Court also noted the need for appropriate rules and conditions under the Information Technology Act regarding data retention by telecom companies and internet service providers, especially concerning Section 67C, which deals with the preservation and retention of information by intermediaries.
Comparison Between Anvar P.V., Shafhi Mohammad, and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Judgments
Aspect | Anvar P.V. (2014) | Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) |
---|---|---|---|
Certificate under Section 65B(4) | Mandatory for admissibility of electronic records. | Can be relaxed if obtaining the certificate is difficult. | Mandatory; can only be dispensed with if the original electronic device is produced. |
Primary Evidence of Electronic Records | Original records are admissible without certificate. | Did not specify this clearly. | Clarified that primary evidence does not need a certificate if the device is produced in court. |
Stage for Certificate Submission | Not specified. | Not discussed. | Must accompany the record or be summoned later. |
Judgment | Upheld strict application of Section 65B. | Relaxed procedural requirements for certificate production. | Reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the certificate and overruled Shafhi Mohammad. |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) is a decisive ruling on the admissibility of electronic records. It reaffirms the importance of complying with Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and mandates the production of a certificate for all electronic records unless the original device is produced in court. The Court’s directions on preserving and securing electronic records ensure that the digital evidence is properly handled during trials. The judgment brings clarity and consistency to the interpretation of electronic evidence laws in India and sets a precedent for future cases involving digital records.
Comments
Post a Comment