0
0
Amishee Gupta
Facts
The case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer originated from a dispute related to the 2011 Kerala Legislative Assembly elections. The appellant, Anvar P.V., who competed against the respondent, P.K. Basheer, claimed that Basheer had engaged in corrupt practices as defined under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Anvar alleged that Basheer spread defamatory songs and speeches through CDs and VCDs, which were meant to damage his reputation and influence voters unfairly. These electronic records were provided to the Kerala High Court as evidence. While the High Court accepted the electronic records, it rejected the petition. Anvar then took the matter to the Supreme Court, where the main legal issue became whether electronic records could be accepted as evidence without a certificate under the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues
The Supreme Court had to decide if electronic records like CDs and VCDs could be used as evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Another question was whether oral statements or other forms of secondary evidence could be used to confirm the content of electronic records in the absence of such a certificate. These questions dealt with the broader issue of how digital material should be treated as evidence in Indian law.
Law
The relevant legal sections were Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which were added through the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 65A states that electronic records may only be used as evidence in the way outlined in Section 65B. Section 65B specifies detailed conditions for the admissibility of electronic records, including the need for a certificate under Section 65B(4). This certificate must identify the record, explain how it was created, and confirm that the device was functioning properly and the record is intact, signed by a person responsible for its operation or management. Before this case, the Supreme Court, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), allowed the use of oral testimony or printed copies to prove electronic evidence, even without a certificate under Section 65B. This interpretation made the requirement for a certificate less strict and caused different courts to approach the admissibility of digital evidence in various ways.
Analysis
The Supreme Court in Anvar thoroughly examined how general rules of evidence apply to electronic records and how specific rules for digital evidence should be handled. The Court noted that electronic records can be easily altered or manipulated and are not the same as traditional documents. Section 65B was introduced to ensure that such records are authentic by requiring a structured certification process. Thus, following Section 65B was not just a formal requirement, but a key way to ensure digital evidence is reliable. By overturning the decision in Navjot Sandhu, the Court resolved the legal confusion. It clarified that general rules on secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act do not apply to electronic records, which are only covered by Sections 65A and 65B. The Court made it clear that electronic evidence is only admissible if it is accompanied by a valid certificate under Section 65B(4). Oral testimony or questioning witnesses can’t replace this legal requirement. Applying this to the case, the CDs and VCDs presented by Anvar, which did not have the required certification, were ruled inadmissible. This strict approach highlighted the Court’s focus on ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of evidence in the digital era.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court rejected Anvar’s appeal, ruling that the electronic records he produced were not admissible because they did not meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The judgment confirmed that Sections 65A and 65B form the complete law on proving electronic evidence, and any deviation from these provisions is not allowed. This decision established a key legal precedent by enforcing strict compliance with certification rules, which helps prevent tampering with digital material. The case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer has had a significant impact beyond the specific facts of the case, as it laid the groundwork for future developments in digital evidence law. Later cases like Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) tried to relax the rules under certain conditions, but the law was clearly reaffirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), which emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 65B. Therefore, Anvar remains a pivotal case in the area of digital evidence, shaping how electronic records are admitted as proof in India.
