In landmark judgment, Supreme Court emphasizes strict compliance with Section 65B(4) for admissibility of electronic records, clarifies law on primary and secondary electronic evidence, and directs reforms for preservation and authentication of digital evidence.
In a pivotal judgment dated July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of India delivered a comprehensive ruling on the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The case, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, arose from election petitions challenging the validity of election of the appellant, Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in 2014. The controversy centered on the admissibility of video recordings (CDs/VCDs) submitted as evidence to prove the late filing of nomination papers.
The Court meticulously analyzed the procedural and substantive requirements of Section 65B, which governs the proof and admissibility of electronic records, and revisited prior conflicting judgments to establish the correct legal position. The main points and implications of the judgment are as follows:
1. Mandatory Certificate Under Section 65B(4):
The Court reaffirmed the ruling in the three-Judge Bench judgment of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), holding that a certificate as stipulated under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a mandatory precondition for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence such as CDs, VCDs, or computer printouts. This certificate must identify the electronic record, describe the manner of its production, give particulars of the device involved, and affirm the conditions under Section 65B(2). Oral evidence or other forms of proof cannot substitute for this written certificate. The Court held that failure to produce this certificate renders the electronic evidence inadmissible.
2. Original Electronic Records as Primary Evidence:
The Court clarified that the requirement of a certificate is unnecessary if the original electronic record itself — such as a laptop, tablet, or mobile phone containing the original data — is produced and identified in court by its owner or operator. In such cases, the original device serves as primary evidence, and Section 65B(4) does not apply. The judgment emphasized that the distinction between primary and secondary evidence is central to the application of Section 65B.
3. Overruling of Conflicting Judgments:
The Supreme Court overruled the two-Judge Bench judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) and the three-Judge Bench judgment in Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP (2015) to the extent they held that the certificate requirement could be relaxed or oral evidence could substitute for the certificate. The Court found these judgments to be per incuriam (overlooked binding precedents) and inconsistent with Anvar P.V.
4. Procedure to Obtain Certificate and Court’s Supervisory Role:
Acknowledging practical difficulties in obtaining the certificate from third parties (e.g., Election Commission officials), the Court held that once a party seeking to rely on electronic evidence has made all possible efforts to procure the certificate, including applications to the authorities and the Court, failure or refusal by the authority to provide the certificate may be excused on the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel the impossible). The Court empowered trial courts to summon the concerned official to produce the certificate and emphasized that the certificate can be produced even at a later stage before the trial concludes, subject to the court’s discretion and the interest of justice.
5. Preservation and Production of Electronic Evidence:
The Court stressed the importance of proper preservation, segregation, and maintenance of electronic data by service providers, such as telecom and internet companies, to ensure availability of electronic records and certificates for litigation. It recommended that the authorities frame suitable rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67C) for retention and production of digital evidence.
6. Reaffirmation of Other Evidence and Findings:
Apart from electronic evidence, the Court noted that the High Court had also relied on oral and documentary evidence to conclude that the nomination papers were filed late, thereby validating the election petition’s outcome.
7. Directions for Reform:
The judgment highlighted the need for uniform guidelines and statutory rules for reception, authentication, retrieval, and preservation of electronic evidence, referencing a committee constituted by the Chief Justices of High Courts for framing such rules.
8. Costs and Outcome:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar with costs of INR 1,00,000 each payable to the respondents, upholding the High Court’s decision declaring the election void.
Significance:
This judgment provides clarity and finality on the procedural requirements for electronic evidence in Indian courts, emphasizing strict adherence to Section 65B(4) while balancing practical realities. It harmonizes inconsistent precedents and aligns Indian evidence law with global standards, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to both technological advancement and procedural rigor. The ruling also serves as a crucial reference for litigants, lawyers, and courts in handling digital evidence amid increasing reliance on electronic records.
---
Statutory provisions
Section 65B, 65A, 62, 63, 65, 3, 22A, 45A, 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 2, 67C, 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Sections 80, 81, 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; Sections 91, 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 91, 207, 311, 345, 346, 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1731377
