2019 (7) TMI 2058 - SC - Indian Laws

Court to Reconsider Section 65B(4) Certificates for Electronic Evidence; Seeks Consistent Legal Standard

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Versus Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.

The Court addressed the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, focusing on the mandatory nature of Section 65B(4) ... Admissibility of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, particularly the interpretation and application of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- With the passage of time, reliance on electronic records during investigation is bound to increase. The law therefore needs to be laid down in this regard with certainty. It is considered appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. Needless to say that there is an element of urgency in the matter. Let the records be laid by the Registry before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment is the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, particularly the interpretation and application of Sections 65A and 65B. The questions revolve around whether the procedural requirements under Section 65B(4) are mandatory for all electronic records or if there are circumstances where traditional provisions under Sections 63 and 65 can be invoked. The Court also examines the need for consistency in legal standards governing electronic evidence, given the increasing reliance on such records in legal proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISAdmissibility of Electronic EvidenceRelevant legal framework and precedents: The judgment discusses the legal framework under the Indian Evidence Act, specifically Sections 65A and 65B, which were introduced to address the admissibility of electronic records. The Court references the precedent set by the three-judge bench in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer, which established that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate as per Section 65B to be admissible as secondary evidence. The Court also examines the two-judge bench decision in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which suggested a more flexible approach to the requirement of the certificate under certain circumstances.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledges the potential conflict between the decisions in Anvar P.V. and Shafhi Mohammad. In Anvar P.V., the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the certificate under Section 65B(4) for secondary electronic evidence. However, Shafhi Mohammad introduced the idea that this requirement might not be necessary if the person producing the evidence is not in control of the device from which the electronic document is generated.Key evidence and findings: The Court identifies the need for a consistent and clear legal standard for the admissibility of electronic evidence, especially given the growing importance of such evidence in legal proceedings. The judgment highlights the challenges faced when electronic records are produced by parties who cannot obtain the necessary certificate under Section 65B(4).Application of law to facts: The Court applies the principles from Anvar P.V. and Shafhi Mohammad to the current legal landscape, recognizing the increasing reliance on electronic records in investigations and trials. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that the procedural requirements do not hinder the admission of authentic and relevant electronic evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considers the argument that the procedural requirements under Section 65B(4) should be flexible to prevent the exclusion of relevant electronic evidence due to technicalities. It also weighs the need for safeguards against tampering and authenticity issues, as emphasized in Anvar P.V.Conclusions: The Court concludes that the interpretation of Section 65B(4) in Shafhi Mohammad requires reconsideration to provide clarity and consistency in the law. The matter is referred to a larger bench to establish a definitive legal standard for the admissibility of electronic evidence.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court emphasizes the need for a clear legal standard regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, highlighting the following principles:'Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.'Additionally, the Court points out that the procedural requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is not always mandatory, especially when the party producing the evidence is not in control of the device from which the electronic document is generated, as noted in Shafhi Mohammad.The final determination is to refer the matter to a larger bench to ensure that the legal framework governing electronic evidence is both clear and adaptable to the evolving nature of technology and its use in legal proceedings.