{"id":5768,"date":"2025-10-10T17:00:05","date_gmt":"2025-10-10T11:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=5768"},"modified":"2025-10-10T17:04:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-10T11:34:13","slug":"admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-in-the-light-of-judicial-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/10\/10\/admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-in-the-light-of-judicial-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in the Light of Judicial\u00a0 Decisions\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aratrika Roy Chowdhury, a Law Student, at St. Xavier\u2019s University, Kolkata<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Introduction\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In <\/span>today’s <\/span>digital <\/span>age, <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence <\/span>any <\/span>data <\/span>created, <\/span>stored, <\/span>or\u00a0 <\/span>transmitted <\/span>in <\/span>electronic <\/span>form <\/span>has <\/span>become <\/span>a <\/span>central <\/span>part <\/span>of <\/span>legal\u00a0 <\/span>proceedings. <\/span>The <\/span>Supreme <\/span>Court <\/span>in <\/span>Tomaso <\/span>Bruno <\/span>& <\/span>Anr. <\/span>v. <\/span>State <\/span>of\u00a0 <\/span>U.P. <\/span>(2015) <\/span><\/em>rightly <\/span>observed <\/span>that <\/span>with <\/span>the <\/span>rapid <\/span>growth <\/span>of <\/span>technology,\u00a0 <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence <\/span>plays <\/span>a <\/span>vital <\/span>role <\/span>in <\/span>proving <\/span>facts, <\/span>since <\/span>it <\/span>can\u00a0 <\/span>greatly <\/span>assist <\/span>investigative <\/span>agencies. <\/span>Recognizing <\/span>this, <\/span>India’s\u00a0 <\/span>legislature <\/span>amended <\/span>the <\/span>Evidence <\/span>Act <\/span>in <\/span>2000 <\/span>to <\/span>include <\/span>electronic\u00a0 <\/span>documents <\/span>within <\/span>its <\/span>scope.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

From <\/span>emails <\/span>and <\/span>CCTV <\/span>footage <\/span>to <\/span>mobile <\/span>chats <\/span>and <\/span>cloud <\/span>data, <\/span>digital\u00a0 <\/span>information <\/span>now <\/span>appears <\/span>regularly <\/span>in <\/span>court. <\/span>However, <\/span>since <\/span>such <\/span>data\u00a0 <\/span>can <\/span>easily <\/span>be <\/span>altered, <\/span>copied, <\/span>or <\/span>deleted, <\/span>the <\/span>courts <\/span>demand <\/span>strong <\/span>proof\u00a0 <\/span>of <\/span>authenticity. <\/span>To <\/span>ensure <\/span>this, <\/span>electronic <\/span>records <\/span>are <\/span>governed <\/span>by\u00a0 <\/span>special <\/span>provisions- <\/span>Sections <\/span>65A <\/span>and <\/span>65B <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>Indian <\/span>Evidence <\/span>Act.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Section 65A states that the contents <\/span>of <\/span>electronic records must be\u00a0 <\/span>proved <\/span>according <\/span>to <\/span>Section <\/span>65B. <\/span>Section <\/span>65B, <\/span>in <\/span>turn, <\/span>lays <\/span>down <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>conditions <\/span>under <\/span>which <\/span>a <\/span>computer-generated <\/span>record <\/span>can <\/span>be <\/span>admitted\u00a0 <\/span>as <\/span>evidence. <\/span>It <\/span>treats <\/span>such <\/span>data <\/span>as <\/span>a <\/span>document, <\/span>but <\/span>only <\/span>when <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>requirements <\/span>are <\/span>satisfiedchief <\/span>among <\/span>them <\/span>being <\/span>the <\/span>certificate\u00a0 <\/span>under <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(4). <\/span>This <\/span>certificate, <\/span>issued <\/span>by <\/span>a <\/span>responsible <\/span>oficial,\u00a0 <\/span>must <\/span>describe <\/span>the <\/span>electronic <\/span>record, <\/span>verify <\/span>how <\/span>it <\/span>was <\/span>produced, <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>confirm <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>computer <\/span>or <\/span>device <\/span>was <\/span>functioning <\/span>properly.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Over <\/span>time, <\/span>the <\/span>judiciary’s <\/span>interpretation <\/span>of <\/span>these <\/span>provisions <\/span>has <\/span>evolved\u00a0 <\/span>through <\/span>a <\/span>series <\/span>of <\/span>landmark <\/span>cases. <\/span>Navjot <\/span>Sandhu <\/span>(2005) <\/span>and <\/span>Tomaso\u00a0 <\/span>Bruno <\/span>(2015) <\/span>initially <\/span>allowed <\/span>flexibility, <\/span>while <\/span>Anvar <\/span>P.V. <\/span>v. <\/span>P.K.\u00a0 <\/span>Basheer <\/span>(2014) <\/span><\/em>introduced <\/span>strict <\/span>compliance. <\/span>Later, <\/span>Shafhi <\/span>Mohammad\u00a0 <\/span>(2018) <\/span>relaxed <\/span>the <\/span>rule <\/span>slightly, <\/span>but <\/span>Arjun <\/span>Panditrao <\/span>Khotkarv. <\/span>Kailash\u00a0 <\/span>Kushanrao <\/span>Gorantyal <\/span>(2020) <\/span>reaffirmed <\/span>the <\/span>certificate’s <\/span>mandatory\u00a0 <\/span>nature. <\/span>The <\/span>following <\/span>discussion <\/span>traces <\/span>this <\/span>judicial <\/span>journey, <\/span>explains\u00a0 <\/span>the <\/span>statutory <\/span>framework, <\/span>and <\/span>explores <\/span>the <\/span>practical <\/span>challenges <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>reforms <\/span>surrounding <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence <\/span>in <\/span>India.\u00a0<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

Statutory Framework: Sections 65A and 65B\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sections <\/span>65A <\/span>and <\/span>65B <\/span>were <\/span>introduced <\/span>by <\/span>the <\/span>Information <\/span>Technology\u00a0 <\/span>Act, <\/span>2000 <\/span>to <\/span>deal <\/span>specifically <\/span>with <\/span>electronic records. Section <\/span>65A\u00a0 <\/span>provides <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>contents <\/span>of <\/span>an <\/span>electronic <\/span>record <\/span>may <\/span>be <\/span>proved <\/span>only\u00a0 <\/span>as <\/span>per <\/span>Section <\/span>65B, <\/span>which <\/span>elaborates <\/span>on <\/span>the <\/span>process.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Under <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(1), <\/span>information <\/span>contained <\/span>in <\/span>an <\/span>electronic <\/span>record\u00a0 <\/span>that <\/span>is <\/span>printed, <\/span>stored, <\/span>or <\/span>copied <\/span>on <\/span>magnetic <\/span>or <\/span>optical <\/span>media <\/span>is\u00a0 <\/span>considered <\/span>a <\/span>document <\/span>and <\/span>is <\/span>admissible <\/span>as <\/span>evidence <\/span>provided\u00a0 <\/span>certain <\/span>conditions <\/span>are <\/span>met. <\/span>These <\/span>include <\/span>regular <\/span>use <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>computer.,\u00a0 <\/span>proper <\/span>functioning <\/span>during <\/span>the <\/span>creation <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>record, <\/span>and <\/span>that <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>information <\/span>was <\/span>produced <\/span>during <\/span>the <\/span>regular <\/span>course <\/span>of <\/span>activities.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Most <\/span>importantly, <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(4) <\/span>requires <\/span>a <\/span>certificate <\/span>from <\/span>a <\/span>person\u00a0 <\/span>in <\/span>a <\/span>responsible <\/span>position <\/span>who <\/span>can <\/span>vouch <\/span>for <\/span>the <\/span>record’s <\/span>authenticity\u00a0 <\/span>and <\/span>the <\/span>computer’s <\/span>proper <\/span>operation. <\/span>The <\/span>certificate <\/span>should <\/span>identify <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>record, <\/span>explain <\/span>how <\/span>it <\/span>was <\/span>produced, <\/span>describe <\/span>the <\/span>device <\/span>used, <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>confirm <\/span>the <\/span>system’s <\/span>reliability.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In essence, when <\/span>the <\/span>original electronic device (primary evidence) <\/span>is\u00a0 <\/span>unavailable, <\/span>a <\/span>secondary <\/span>copy <\/span>such <\/span>as <\/span>a <\/span>printout <\/span>or <\/span>CD <\/span>can <\/span>be <\/span>admitted\u00a0 <\/span>only <\/span>if <\/span>it <\/span>is <\/span>supported <\/span>by <\/span>this <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(4) <\/span>certificate. <\/span>These\u00a0 <\/span>provisions <\/span>together <\/span>form <\/span>a <\/span>complete <\/span>code <\/span>governing <\/span>the <\/span>admissibility\u00a0 <\/span>of <\/span>electronic <\/span>records, <\/span>ensuring <\/span>that <\/span>courts <\/span>rely <\/span>only <\/span>on <\/span>verifiable <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>authentic <\/span>data.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial Development of Electronic Evidence Rules\u00a0 <\/em><\/span>State <\/span>(NCT <\/span>of <\/span>Delhi) <\/span>v. <\/span>Navjot Sandhu <\/span>(2005): <\/span><\/em>A Flexible Start\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The first major case dealing with electronic evidence was Navjot\u00a0 <\/span>Sandhu, popularly <\/span>known <\/span>as <\/span>the <\/span>“Parliament <\/span>Attack <\/span>Case.” <\/span>The\u00a0 <\/span>prosecution <\/span>sought <\/span>to <\/span>introduce <\/span>call-detail <\/span>records <\/span>from <\/span>telecom\u00a0 <\/span>servers <\/span>without a <\/span>formal <\/span>Section <\/span>65B <\/span>certificate. <\/span>The <\/span>Supreme <\/span>Court\u00a0 <\/span>allowed <\/span>their <\/span>admission <\/span>under <\/span>the <\/span>general <\/span>provisions <\/span>of <\/span>secondary\u00a0 <\/span>evidence <\/span>(Sections <\/span>63-65) <\/span>and <\/span>ruled <\/span>that <\/span>Section <\/span>65B <\/span>was <\/span>not\u00a0 <\/span>mandatory. <\/span>This <\/span>judgment <\/span>reflected <\/span>a <\/span>pragmatic <\/span>approach,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

acknowledging <\/span>the <\/span>practical <\/span>difficulties <\/span>of <\/span>producing <\/span>entire <\/span>computer\u00a0 <\/span>systems in court. <\/span>Anvar P.V. <\/span>v. <\/span>P.K. Basheer (2014): Turning Point Towards Strict\u00a0 <\/span>Compliance\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nearly <\/span>a <\/span>decade <\/span>later, <\/span>Anvar <\/span>P. <\/span>V. <\/span>changed <\/span>the <\/span>landscape. <\/span>The <\/span>Court\u00a0 <\/span>ruled <\/span>that <\/span>Sections <\/span>65A <\/span>and <\/span>65B <\/span>are <\/span>special <\/span>provisions <\/span>and <\/span>constitute\u00a0 <\/span>a <\/span>complete <\/span>code <\/span>for <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence. <\/span>It <\/span>overruled <\/span>Navjot <\/span>Sandhu <\/span>to\u00a0 <\/span>the <\/span>extent <\/span>it <\/span>allowed <\/span>flexibility. <\/span>The <\/span>judgment <\/span>held <\/span>that <\/span>no <\/span>electronic\u00a0 <\/span>record can be admitted unless <\/span>it <\/span>meets all Section <\/span>65B <\/span>requirements,\u00a0 <\/span>including the certificate <\/span>under <\/span>subsection <\/span>(4). <\/span>Oral <\/span>testimony <\/span>alone <\/span>was\u00a0 <\/span>declared <\/span>insufficient. <\/span>This <\/span>decision <\/span>marked <\/span>a <\/span>clear <\/span>shift <\/span>toward <\/span>strict\u00a0 <\/span>procedural <\/span>compliance.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Tomaso <\/span>Bruno <\/span>& Anr. <\/span>V. <\/span>State <\/span>of <\/span>U.P. (2015): <\/span>Partial <\/span>Return <\/span>to\u00a0 <\/span>Flexibility\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Surprisingly, <\/span>in <\/span>Tomaso <\/span>Bruno, <\/span>another <\/span>three-judge <\/span>bench <\/span>reverted <\/span>to\u00a0 <\/span>a <\/span>more <\/span>lenient <\/span>approach. <\/span>Without <\/span>referring <\/span>to <\/span>Anvar, <\/span>it <\/span>allowed\u00a0 <\/span>secondary <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence <\/span>under <\/span>the <\/span>general <\/span>provisions <\/span>of <\/span>Section\u00a0 <\/span>65, <\/span>implying <\/span>that <\/span>Section <\/span>6SB <\/span>was <\/span>not <\/span>the <\/span>only <\/span>route <\/span>to <\/span>admissibility.\u00a0 <\/span>This inconsistency caused confusion among courts and practitioners\u00a0 <\/span>alike.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Shafhi Mohammad <\/span>v. <\/span>State of H.P. <\/span>(2018): <\/span>A Narrow Exception\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In <\/span>Shafhi <\/span>Mohammad, <\/span>the <\/span>Court <\/span>recognized <\/span>that <\/span>sometimes <\/span>the <\/span>person\u00a0 <\/span>presenting <\/span>evidence <\/span>does <\/span>not <\/span>have <\/span>access <\/span>to <\/span>the <\/span>device <\/span>from <\/span>which <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>record originated. It ruled that in such cases, <\/span>the <\/span>absence <\/span>of <\/span>a <\/span>65B\u00a0 <\/span>certificate <\/span>should <\/span>not <\/span>automatically <\/span>bar <\/span>evidence. <\/span>The <\/span>decision\u00a0 <\/span>introduced <\/span>a <\/span>limited <\/span>exception, <\/span>treating <\/span>the <\/span>certificate <\/span>as <\/span>procedural\u00a0 <\/span>rather <\/span>than <\/span>mandatory <\/span>where <\/span>compliance <\/span>was <\/span>impossible.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar <\/span>v. <\/span>Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal <\/span>(2020):\u00a0 <\/span>Restoring the Rule\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, <\/span>the <\/span>confusion <\/span>was <\/span>resolved <\/span>in <\/span>Arjun <\/span>Panditrao <\/span>Khotkar. <\/span>The\u00a0 <\/span>Supreme <\/span>Court <\/span>reaffirmed <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(4) <\/span>certificate <\/span>is\u00a0<\/span>mandatory <\/span>for <\/span>admissibility <\/span>of <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence, <\/span>overruling <\/span>Shafhi\u00a0 <\/span>Mohammad. <\/span>The <\/span>Court <\/span>clarified <\/span>that <\/span>if <\/span>a <\/span>party <\/span>cannot <\/span>obtain <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>certificate, <\/span>they <\/span>must <\/span>request <\/span>the <\/span>court <\/span>to <\/span>summon <\/span>the <\/span>person <\/span>or <\/span>entity\u00a0 <\/span>in <\/span>control <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>device <\/span>to <\/span>produce <\/span>it. <\/span>Without <\/span>such <\/span>efforts, <\/span>the <\/span>evidence\u00a0 <\/span>cannot <\/span>be <\/span>admitted.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Following <\/span>this <\/span>ruling, <\/span>courts <\/span>have <\/span>consistently <\/span>applied <\/span>a strict\u00a0 <\/span>interpretation <\/span>no <\/span>certificate, <\/span>no <\/span>evidence-except <\/span>in <\/span>truly <\/span>exceptional\u00a0 <\/span>situations. <\/span>For <\/span>example, <\/span>in <\/span>Kailash <\/span>v. <\/span>State <\/span>of <\/span>Maharashtra <\/span>(2025), <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>Court <\/span>held <\/span>that <\/span>once <\/span>a <\/span>valid <\/span>certificate <\/span>is <\/span>produced, <\/span>video <\/span>recordings\u00a0 <\/span>become admissible like any other document, <\/span>and <\/span>there <\/span>is <\/span>no <\/span>need <\/span>to\u00a0 <\/span>transcribe <\/span>every <\/span>detail.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Understanding the Section 65B(4) Certificate\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(4) <\/span>certificate <\/span>is <\/span>now <\/span>recognized <\/span>as <\/span>the <\/span>key <\/span>to\u00a0 <\/span>admitting electronic evidence. Courts have clarified that <\/span>it <\/span>must cover\u00a0 <\/span>all <\/span>technical <\/span>conditions <\/span>mentioned <\/span>in <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(2), <\/span>such <\/span>as <\/span>proper\u00a0 <\/span>device functioning and authenticity <\/span>of <\/span>data. <\/span>The <\/span>certificate must\u00a0 <\/span>accompany <\/span>the <\/span>evidence at <\/span>the <\/span>time <\/span>it <\/span>is <\/span>presented, <\/span>though <\/span>courts <\/span>may\u00a0 <\/span>allow <\/span>some <\/span>flexibility if there <\/span>is <\/span>a valid reason for <\/span>delay.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In <\/span>Arjun <\/span>Panditrao, the <\/span>Court <\/span>emphasized <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>certificate <\/span>must\u00a0 <\/span>address <\/span>every <\/span>necessary <\/span>detail <\/span>about <\/span>the <\/span>record <\/span>and <\/span>its <\/span>production.\u00a0 <\/span>Once <\/span>such <\/span>a certificate <\/span>is <\/span>furnished, <\/span>the <\/span>record <\/span>can <\/span>be <\/span>treated <\/span>as <\/span>primary\u00a0 <\/span>evidence, <\/span>eliminating <\/span>the <\/span>need <\/span>for <\/span>additional <\/span>oral <\/span>testimnony.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Practical Challenges in Handling Electronic <\/strong>Evidence\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While <\/span>the <\/span>legal <\/span>framework <\/span>is <\/span>clear, <\/span>implementing <\/span>it <\/span>in <\/span>real-world <\/span>cases\u00a0 <\/span>presents <\/span>significant <\/span>hurdles:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Chain of custody: Electronic <\/span>data <\/span>can <\/span>easily <\/span>be <\/span>altered <\/span>or\u00a0 <\/span>deleted, <\/span>so <\/span>every <\/span>stagefrom <\/span>seizure <\/span>to <\/span>storage <\/span>must <\/span>be\u00a0 <\/span>documented <\/span>carefully. <\/span>Any <\/span>gap <\/span>in <\/span>this <\/span>chain <\/span>can <\/span>render <\/span>the\u00a0 <\/span>evidence <\/span>unreliable.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

” <\/span>Device <\/span>and data diversity: <\/span>Evidence <\/span>may <\/span>come <\/span>from <\/span>computers,\u00a0 <\/span>smartphones, <\/span>cameras, <\/span>or <\/span>servers. <\/span>Extracting <\/span>it <\/span>safely <\/span>requires\u00a0<\/span>technical <\/span>expertise; <\/span>improper <\/span>handling <\/span>can <\/span>lead <\/span>to <\/span>accusations <\/span>of\u00a0 <\/span>tampering.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Encryption and <\/span>access: <\/span>Modern <\/span>devices <\/span>use <\/span>strong <\/span>encryption,\u00a0 <\/span>and <\/span>investigators <\/span>often <\/span>need <\/span>legal <\/span>permission <\/span>to <\/span>access <\/span>or <\/span>decrypt\u00a0 <\/span>data. <\/span>End-to-end <\/span>encrypted <\/span>chats <\/span>(like <\/span>WhatsApp) <\/span>are <\/span>especially\u00a0 <\/span>challenging <\/span>to <\/span>authenticate.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Cloud and third-party storage: <\/span>Increasingly, <\/span>data <\/span>is <\/span>stored <\/span>in\u00a0 <\/span>cloud <\/span>servers <\/span>or <\/span>social <\/span>media <\/span>platforms, <\/span>often <\/span>outside <\/span>India’s\u00a0 <\/span>jurisdiction. <\/span>Obtaining <\/span>and <\/span>certifying <\/span>such <\/span>data <\/span>requires\u00a0 <\/span>cooperation <\/span>from <\/span>service <\/span>providers <\/span>and <\/span>may <\/span>involve <\/span>international\u00a0 <\/span>legal <\/span>processes.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Social <\/span>media <\/span>evidence: <\/span>Courts <\/span>have <\/span>ruled that screenshots or\u00a0 <\/span>digital <\/span>copies <\/span>of <\/span>chats <\/span>or <\/span>posts <\/span>are <\/span>admissible <\/span>only <\/span>when\u00a0 <\/span>accompanied <\/span>by <\/span>a <\/span>proper <\/span>certificate <\/span>verifying <\/span>their <\/span>source <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>authenticity. <\/span>For <\/span>example, <\/span>in <\/span>Rakesh <\/span>Singla <\/span>v. <\/span>Union <\/span>of <\/span>India\u00a0 <\/span>(2021), <\/span>uncertified <\/span>WhatsApp <\/span>chats <\/span>were <\/span>deemned <\/span>inadmissible.\u00a0 <\/span>Similarly, <\/span>Virendra <\/span>Khanna <\/span>v. <\/span>Karnataka <\/span>(2021) <\/span><\/em>stressed <\/span>that\u00a0 <\/span>mere <\/span>presence <\/span>of <\/span>chats <\/span>is <\/span>not <\/span>proof <\/span>of <\/span>guilt <\/span>unless <\/span>corroborated.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

These <\/span>challenges <\/span>highlight <\/span>the <\/span>urgent <\/span>need <\/span>for <\/span>better <\/span>training, <\/span>more\u00a0 <\/span>forensic <\/span>labs, <\/span>and <\/span>standardized <\/span>procedures. <\/span>Many <\/span>Indian <\/span>police\u00a0 <\/span>departments <\/span>lack <\/span>advanced <\/span>digital-forensic <\/span>infrastructure, <\/span>making\u00a0 <\/span>compliance <\/span>difficult. <\/span>Nevertheless, <\/span>courts <\/span>have <\/span>shown <\/span>flexibility <\/span>in\u00a0 <\/span>interpretation <\/span>while <\/span>maintaining <\/span>the <\/span>importance <\/span>of <\/span>authenticity.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Adapting to Digital Forensics, Cloud, and Social Media Evidence\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Indian <\/span>courts <\/span>and <\/span>investigators <\/span>are <\/span>gradually <\/span>modernizing <\/span>their\u00a0 <\/span>approach. <\/span>Digital <\/span>forensics <\/span>now <\/span>plays <\/span>a <\/span>crucial <\/span>role <\/span>in <\/span>criminal <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>civil <\/span>cases. <\/span>Investigators <\/span>are <\/span>encouraged <\/span>to <\/span>use <\/span>best <\/span>practices–1ike\u00a0 <\/span>imaging <\/span>devices <\/span>bit-by-bit, <\/span>verifying <\/span>hash <\/span>values, <\/span>and <\/span>maintaining\u00a0 <\/span>secure <\/span>backups.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Bharatiya <\/span>Sakshya <\/span>Adhiniyam, <\/span>2023, <\/span>which <\/span>replaces <\/span>the <\/span>old\u00a0 <\/span>Evidence <\/span>Act, <\/span>explicitly <\/span>integrates <\/span>electronic <\/span>records <\/span>throughout <\/span>its\u00a0 <\/span>provisions. <\/span>It <\/span>redefines <\/span>“documents” <\/span>to <\/span>include <\/span>digital <\/span>records <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>retains <\/span>the <\/span>certificate system under Section <\/span>63 <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>new <\/span>law, <\/span>modeled\u00a0 <\/span>on <\/span>the <\/span>old <\/span>Section 65B.\u00a0<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

Courts have also acknowledged the realities <\/span>of <\/span>social media and cloud\u00a0 <\/span>evidence. <\/span>They <\/span>often <\/span>accept <\/span>authenticated <\/span>platform <\/span>records <\/span>or <\/span>forensic\u00a0 <\/span>examiner <\/span>reports <\/span>as <\/span>substitutes <\/span>for <\/span>the <\/span>certificate, <\/span>provided <\/span>reliability\u00a0 <\/span>is <\/span>ensured. <\/span>Some <\/span>courts have even allowed <\/span>the <\/span>direct playback <\/span>of\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

digital <\/span>content <\/span>in <\/span>court <\/span>(as <\/span>seen <\/span>in <\/span>Kailash <\/span>v. <\/span>Maharashtra, <\/span>2025),\u00a0 <\/span>making <\/span>proceedings <\/span>more <\/span>practical <\/span>and <\/span>technology-friendly.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Electronic <\/span>evidence <\/span>is <\/span>now <\/span>indispensable <\/span>in <\/span>the <\/span>Indian <\/span>justice <\/span>system.\u00a0 <\/span>Over <\/span>two <\/span>decades <\/span>of <\/span>case <\/span>law <\/span>have <\/span>refined <\/span>the <\/span>rules <\/span>governing <\/span>its\u00a0 <\/span>admissibility, <\/span>culminating <\/span>in <\/span>a <\/span>clear <\/span>standard: <\/span>electronic <\/span>records <\/span>are\u00a0 <\/span>admissible <\/span>only <\/span>when <\/span>supported <\/span>by <\/span>a <\/span>valid <\/span>Section <\/span>65B(4) <\/span>certificate.\u00a0 <\/span>Exceptions <\/span>are <\/span>rare <\/span>and <\/span>permitted <\/span>only <\/span>when <\/span>obtaining <\/span>the <\/span>certificate\u00a0 <\/span>is <\/span>genuinely <\/span>impossible <\/span>and <\/span>the <\/span>party <\/span>has <\/span>sought <\/span>judicial <\/span>assistance.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>upcoming <\/span>Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, <\/span>2023 <\/span>continues <\/span>this\u00a0 <\/span>framework <\/span>but <\/span>also <\/span>modernizes <\/span>it <\/span>to <\/span>reflect <\/span>current <\/span>technological\u00a0 <\/span>realities. <\/span>Still, <\/span>more <\/span>clarity <\/span>is <\/span>needed <\/span>especially <\/span>regarding <\/span>foreign\u00a0 <\/span>based <\/span>digital <\/span>evidence <\/span>and <\/span>social <\/span>media <\/span>content.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Ultimately, <\/span>the <\/span>goal <\/span>of <\/span>these <\/span>laws <\/span>is <\/span>not <\/span>to <\/span>prioritize <\/span>rigid <\/span>technicalities\u00a0 <\/span>but <\/span>to <\/span>ensure <\/span>that <\/span>justice <\/span>is <\/span>based <\/span>on <\/span>reliable <\/span>and <\/span>authentic <\/span>digital\u00a0 <\/span>material. <\/span>As <\/span>technology <\/span>advances, <\/span>India’s <\/span>legal <\/span>system <\/span>must <\/span>continue\u00a0 <\/span>evolving-balancing <\/span>procedural <\/span>rigor <\/span>with <\/span>practical <\/span>realities, <\/span>and\u00a0 <\/span>ensuring <\/span>that <\/span>electronic <\/span>evidence <\/span>serves <\/span>truth <\/span>rather <\/span>than <\/span>complicates\u00a0 <\/span>it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Author: Aratrika Roy Chowdhury, a Law Student, at St. Xavier\u2019s University, Kolkata Introduction\u00a0\u00a0 In today’s digital age, electronic evidence any data created, stored, or\u00a0 transmitted in electronic form has become a central part of legal\u00a0 proceedings. The Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of\u00a0 U.P. (2015) rightly observed that with the rapid […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5012,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5768"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5768"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5768\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5772,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5768\/revisions\/5772"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}