Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in the Light of Judicial  Decisions 

Introduction  

In today’s digital age, electronic evidence any data created, stored, or  transmitted in electronic form has become a central part of legal  proceedings. The Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of  U.P. (2015) rightly observed that with the rapid growth of technology,  electronic evidence plays a vital role in proving facts, since it can  greatly assist investigative agencies. Recognizing this, India’s  legislature amended the Evidence Act in 2000 to include electronic  documents within its scope.  

From emails and CCTV footage to mobile chats and cloud data, digital  information now appears regularly in court. However, since such data  can easily be altered, copied, or deleted, the courts demand strong proof  of authenticity. To ensure this, electronic records are governed by  special provisions- Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.  

Section 65A states that the contents of electronic records must be  proved according to Section 65B. Section 65B, in turn, lays down the  conditions under which a computer-generated record can be admitted  as evidence. It treats such data as a document, but only when the  requirements are satisfiedchief among them being the certificate  under Section 65B(4). This certificate, issued by a responsible oficial,  must describe the electronic record, verify how it was produced, and  confirm that the computer or device was functioning properly.  

Over time, the judiciary’s interpretation of these provisions has evolved  through a series of landmark cases. Navjot Sandhu (2005) and Tomaso  Bruno (2015) initially allowed flexibility, while Anvar P.V. v. P.K.  Basheer (2014) introduced strict compliance. Later, Shafhi Mohammad  (2018) relaxed the rule slightly, but Arjun Panditrao Khotkarv. Kailash  Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) reaffirmed the certificate’s mandatory  nature. The following discussion traces this judicial journey, explains  the statutory framework, and explores the practical challenges and  reforms surrounding electronic evidence in India. 

Statutory Framework: Sections 65A and 65B  

Sections 65A and 65B were introduced by the Information Technology  Act, 2000 to deal specifically with electronic records. Section 65A  provides that the contents of an electronic record may be proved only  as per Section 65B, which elaborates on the process.  

Under Section 65B(1), information contained in an electronic record  that is printed, stored, or copied on magnetic or optical media is  considered a document and is admissible as evidence provided  certain conditions are met. These include regular use of the computer.,  proper functioning during the creation of the record, and that the  information was produced during the regular course of activities.  

Most importantly, Section 65B(4) requires a certificate from a person  in a responsible position who can vouch for the record’s authenticity  and the computer’s proper operation. The certificate should identify the  record, explain how it was produced, describe the device used, and  confirm the system’s reliability.  

In essence, when the original electronic device (primary evidence) is  unavailable, a secondary copy such as a printout or CD can be admitted  only if it is supported by this Section 65B(4) certificate. These  provisions together form a complete code governing the admissibility  of electronic records, ensuring that courts rely only on verifiable and  authentic data.  

Judicial Development of Electronic Evidence Rules  State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005): A Flexible Start  

The first major case dealing with electronic evidence was Navjot  Sandhu, popularly known as the “Parliament Attack Case.” The  prosecution sought to introduce call-detail records from telecom  servers without a formal Section 65B certificate. The Supreme Court  allowed their admission under the general provisions of secondary  evidence (Sections 63-65) and ruled that Section 65B was not  mandatory. This judgment reflected a pragmatic approach, 

acknowledging the practical difficulties of producing entire computer  systems in court. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): Turning Point Towards Strict  Compliance  

Nearly a decade later, Anvar P. V. changed the landscape. The Court  ruled that Sections 65A and 65B are special provisions and constitute  a complete code for electronic evidence. It overruled Navjot Sandhu to  the extent it allowed flexibility. The judgment held that no electronic  record can be admitted unless it meets all Section 65B requirements,  including the certificate under subsection (4). Oral testimony alone was  declared insufficient. This decision marked a clear shift toward strict  procedural compliance.  

Tomaso Bruno & Anr. V. State of U.P. (2015): Partial Return to  Flexibility  

Surprisingly, in Tomaso Bruno, another three-judge bench reverted to  a more lenient approach. Without referring to Anvar, it allowed  secondary electronic evidence under the general provisions of Section  65, implying that Section 6SB was not the only route to admissibility.  This inconsistency caused confusion among courts and practitioners  alike.  

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018): A Narrow Exception  

In Shafhi Mohammad, the Court recognized that sometimes the person  presenting evidence does not have access to the device from which the  record originated. It ruled that in such cases, the absence of a 65B  certificate should not automatically bar evidence. The decision  introduced a limited exception, treating the certificate as procedural  rather than mandatory where compliance was impossible.  

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020):  Restoring the Rule  

Finally, the confusion was resolved in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. The  Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Section 65B(4) certificate is mandatory for admissibility of electronic evidence, overruling Shafhi  Mohammad. The Court clarified that if a party cannot obtain the  certificate, they must request the court to summon the person or entity  in control of the device to produce it. Without such efforts, the evidence  cannot be admitted.  

Following this ruling, courts have consistently applied a strict  interpretation no certificate, no evidence-except in truly exceptional  situations. For example, in Kailash v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the  Court held that once a valid certificate is produced, video recordings  become admissible like any other document, and there is no need to  transcribe every detail.  

Understanding the Section 65B(4) Certificate  

The Section 65B(4) certificate is now recognized as the key to  admitting electronic evidence. Courts have clarified that it must cover  all technical conditions mentioned in Section 65B(2), such as proper  device functioning and authenticity of data. The certificate must  accompany the evidence at the time it is presented, though courts may  allow some flexibility if there is a valid reason for delay.  

In Arjun Panditrao, the Court emphasized that the certificate must  address every necessary detail about the record and its production.  Once such a certificate is furnished, the record can be treated as primary  evidence, eliminating the need for additional oral testimnony.  

Practical Challenges in Handling Electronic Evidence  

While the legal framework is clear, implementing it in real-world cases  presents significant hurdles:  

Chain of custody: Electronic data can easily be altered or  deleted, so every stagefrom seizure to storage must be  documented carefully. Any gap in this chain can render the  evidence unreliable.  

” Device and data diversity: Evidence may come from computers,  smartphones, cameras, or servers. Extracting it safely requires technical expertise; improper handling can lead to accusations of  tampering.  

Encryption and access: Modern devices use strong encryption,  and investigators often need legal permission to access or decrypt  data. End-to-end encrypted chats (like WhatsApp) are especially  challenging to authenticate.  

Cloud and third-party storage: Increasingly, data is stored in  cloud servers or social media platforms, often outside India’s  jurisdiction. Obtaining and certifying such data requires  cooperation from service providers and may involve international  legal processes.  

Social media evidence: Courts have ruled that screenshots or  digital copies of chats or posts are admissible only when  accompanied by a proper certificate verifying their source and  authenticity. For example, in Rakesh Singla v. Union of India  (2021), uncertified WhatsApp chats were deemned inadmissible.  Similarly, Virendra Khanna v. Karnataka (2021) stressed that  mere presence of chats is not proof of guilt unless corroborated.  

These challenges highlight the urgent need for better training, more  forensic labs, and standardized procedures. Many Indian police  departments lack advanced digital-forensic infrastructure, making  compliance difficult. Nevertheless, courts have shown flexibility in  interpretation while maintaining the importance of authenticity.  

Adapting to Digital Forensics, Cloud, and Social Media Evidence 

Indian courts and investigators are gradually modernizing their  approach. Digital forensics now plays a crucial role in criminal and  civil cases. Investigators are encouraged to use best practices–1ike  imaging devices bit-by-bit, verifying hash values, and maintaining  secure backups.  

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaces the old  Evidence Act, explicitly integrates electronic records throughout its  provisions. It redefines “documents” to include digital records and  retains the certificate system under Section 63 of the new law, modeled  on the old Section 65B. 

Courts have also acknowledged the realities of social media and cloud  evidence. They often accept authenticated platform records or forensic  examiner reports as substitutes for the certificate, provided reliability  is ensured. Some courts have even allowed the direct playback of  

digital content in court (as seen in Kailash v. Maharashtra, 2025),  making proceedings more practical and technology-friendly.  

Conclusion  

Electronic evidence is now indispensable in the Indian justice system.  Over two decades of case law have refined the rules governing its  admissibility, culminating in a clear standard: electronic records are  admissible only when supported by a valid Section 65B(4) certificate.  Exceptions are rare and permitted only when obtaining the certificate  is genuinely impossible and the party has sought judicial assistance.  

The upcoming Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 continues this  framework but also modernizes it to reflect current technological  realities. Still, more clarity is needed especially regarding foreign  based digital evidence and social media content.  

Ultimately, the goal of these laws is not to prioritize rigid technicalities  but to ensure that justice is based on reliable and authentic digital  material. As technology advances, India’s legal system must continue  evolving-balancing procedural rigor with practical realities, and  ensuring that electronic evidence serves truth rather than complicates  it.