Court underscores mandatory compliance with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence, highlights unexplained FIR delay and absence of proof linking accused to alleged posts
In a significant judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, the Madras High Court quashed the conviction of former Tamil Nadu MLA and Bharatiya Janata Party National Secretary H. Raja in a criminal case involving alleged provocative social media posts. The case stemmed from accusations that Raja had posted inflammatory messages on Twitter and Facebook on March 6, 2018, which purportedly incited unrest by targeting statues of the revered social reformer Periyar (EVR).
The prosecution relied heavily on screenshots of social media posts and televised news reports as evidence. However, the High Court meticulously scrutinized the admissibility of this electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates strict certification requirements for secondary electronic records to be accepted in court. The court found that none of the exhibits, including photocopies of screenshots and news reports, complied with these requirements, lacking the necessary certification to establish authenticity and continuity of the evidence chain. This deficiency rendered the purported social media evidence inadmissible.
Furthermore, the court took note of a critical procedural lapse: a delay of over six months between the lodging of the initial complaints in March 2018 and the registration of the FIRs in September 2018. This unexplained delay raised serious suspicions of possible manipulation or fabrication of complaints, undermining the prosecution’s case. The absence of any explanation or documentation clarifying this delay compounded the court’s doubts.
The judgment also emphasized the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence — proof beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court was faulted for assuming the guilt of the accused based on the absence of a public denial by Raja and relying on tentative observations made during earlier quash petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court clarified that such quash orders are not binding and do not amount to proof of guilt. It reiterated that the trial court must independently assess the evidence presented during the trial to determine guilt.
Additionally, the court observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the alleged statements by Raja had any tangible impact on public order or incited violence, an essential element to sustain charges under Sections 153 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof.
In light of these findings, the Madras High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on Raja by the Special Court for MPs and MLAs and acquitted him of all charges. The court ordered the cancellation of the appellant’s bail bond and directed the refund of any fine paid.
This landmark ruling reinforces the judiciary’s insistence on procedural rigor in the admissibility of electronic evidence and affirms the necessity of unimpeachable proof in criminal prosecutions, especially those involving high-profile political figures and sensitive social issues.
Bottom Line:
Admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is mandatory for proving social media posts or electronic records in criminal cases.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 65A, 65B, 60; Indian Penal Code Sections 153, 504; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482, 313
