The Challenges of Admitting Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts

Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts: Need for Clear Judicial Guidance

Introduction

In today’s digital era, most disputes—civil, criminal, or electoral—rely heavily on electronic records such as emails, messages, call recordings, or CCTV footage. As digital communication replaces paper, Indian courts continue to grapple with the question of how to verify and admit digital material as authentic evidence. The shift from the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872 to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 was meant to simplify this process, yet confusion persists. Judicial interpretation through landmark cases remains crucial for maintaining the credibility of India’s justice system.

1. Why is electronic evidence significant in today’s justice system?

Electronic records now form the backbone of proof in modern litigation—be it election petitions, property disputes, criminal trials, or corruption cases. Their authenticity directly affects fairness, as digital evidence can be easily manipulated or fabricated without proper verification mechanisms.

2. How did the Information Technology (IT) Act influence the admissibility of electronic evidence?

The Information Technology Act, 2000 granted legal recognition to electronic records and digital signatures. However, it did not clearly define the evidentiary process for authenticating digital records, leading to judicial uncertainty over whether a certificate was mandatory for admitting such evidence.

3. What were the relevant provisions under the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)?

Section 65A: Stated that the contents of electronic records must be proved in accordance with Section 65B.
Section 65B(4): Required a certificate identifying the electronic device and confirming the reliability of the process used to produce the record, signed by a person responsible for managing the device.

Example: If an email printout or WhatsApp chat screenshot is submitted as evidence, a certificate under Section 65B(4) confirming the source device’s authenticity must accompany it.

4. How did early case law shape this area, particularly the Parliament Attack Case (2005)?

In State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005)—the Parliament Attack Case—the Supreme Court allowed secondary electronic evidence such as call records to be admitted without a Section 65B certificate. It relied on general provisions (Sections 63 and 65) for secondary evidence, effectively bypassing the safeguards of Section 65B.

Example: Call records were admitted even without a certificate verifying the computer systems used. This diluted the legal safeguards for electronic evidence and allowed potentially unreliable data to influence verdicts.

5. How did the Supreme Court correct this position in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)?

In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the Court overruled Navjot Sandhu and held that Sections 65A and 65B form a complete code for electronic evidence. Thus, electronic records must comply with Section 65B certification and cannot be admitted through general provisions.

Example: The case involved a CD with allegedly defamatory songs. Since it lacked a valid Section 65B certificate, it was deemed inadmissible. This judgment reinstated the importance of certification for ensuring authenticity.

6. What did later judgments like Tomaso Bruno (2015) and Shafhi Mohammad (2018) decide?

Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP (2015): Suggested that crucial electronic evidence like CCTV footage could be admitted without strict certification.
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of HP (2018): Relaxed the rule further, allowing admission without certification when the party did not control the device generating the record.

These rulings reintroduced ambiguity, weakening the consistency achieved by Anvar P.V.

7. How did the Supreme Court finally settle the issue in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)?

A three-judge Bench reaffirmed that Sections 65A and 65B form a complete code. It clarified that:

• Primary electronic evidence (original device such as a phone or laptop) can be produced directly without a certificate.
• Secondary electronic evidence (copies, screenshots, or CDs) require a valid Section 65B(4) certificate.

This judgment brought finality to the IEA-era interpretation.

8. How has the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 changed the framework?

The BSA modernized the evidentiary framework:

• Section 57 (BSA): Recognizes digital and electronic records as primary evidence.
• Section 63 (BSA): Mirrors Section 65B of the IEA, outlining certification requirements.

However, uncertainty remains—are all digital records now treated as “primary evidence,” or does certification still apply in some cases?

9. What was the controversy in Kum. Shubha @ Shubhanshankar v. State of Karnataka (2025)?

In this recent case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Arjun Panditrao but did not clarify how Section 57 interacts with Section 63 under the BSA. As a result, lower courts remain uncertain about whether certification is required when electronic records are presented as primary evidence.

10. Why is judicial clarity urgently needed?

Trial and district courts handle thousands of digital evidence cases daily. The lack of uniform interpretation leads to delays, inconsistent rulings, and appeals. A clear Supreme Court clarification of Sections 57 and 63 (BSA) would ensure consistency, fairness, and speed in India’s digital justice system.

Synopsis (75 words)

India’s judicial process now depends heavily on electronic evidence. Landmark cases—from Navjot Sandhu (2005) to Kum. Shubha (2025)—have shaped the law, yet confusion persists under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Clarifying the interplay between Sections 57 and 63 is essential to avoid inconsistent rulings and delays. Clear Supreme Court guidance will strengthen authenticity, consistency, and trust in India’s evolving digital justice system.