Case: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1; Civil Appeal Nos. 20825–20826 of 2017 and connected appeals.
Supreme Court of India | Three-Judge Bench | 14 July 2020
A CCTV recording is relied upon in a criminal trial. A party produces a WhatsApp screenshot. A bank supplies a computer-generated statement, or the police file a CD containing a recording. In each instance, counsel must ask a question before debating what the record proves: has the electronic evidence been produced in the manner required by law?
That question lies at the heart of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. The judgment is sometimes summarised in one sentence—‘a Section 65B certificate is mandatory’. That summary is incomplete. The Supreme Court also distinguished original devices from copies, explained how a missing certificate might be obtained from a third party, and addressed the stage at which certification may be supplied.
How an election dispute became a leading electronic-evidence case
The dispute arose from the 2014 Maharashtra Assembly election for the Jalna constituency. The successful candidate’s nomination papers were challenged on the allegation that certain forms had been presented after the prescribed 3:00 p.m. deadline. Video recordings from cameras at the Returning Officer’s premises became material to the disputed chronology.
The Election Commission produced recordings on CDs/VCDs, but the certificate furnished with them did not satisfy the requirements of Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The litigation eventually required a three-Judge Bench to resolve conflicting approaches to the admissibility of electronic records. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the election judgment, while clarifying the applicable evidentiary rules.
1. When is a Section 65B certificate mandatory?
The Court reaffirmed Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: when the party relies on a computer output—a copy, printout, extracted recording or other derivative electronic record—the special statutory conditions apply, including the certificate contemplated by Section 65B(4). The conditions are not replaced by ordinary rules for secondary documentary evidence.
The purpose is not a formal signature for its own sake. The certificate links the output to an identifiable computer or system, the manner of its production and the conditions in which the information was stored or processed. Without such a foundation, the court may be asked to treat an easily altered copy as if its origin and integrity were established.
The Court expressly rejected the proposition that oral testimony, standing in place of a required Section 65B certificate, is sufficient. It overruled the contrary relaxation associated with Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801.
2. What if the original mobile phone, laptop or device is produced?
A crucial clarification appears in paragraph 72(b) of the judgment. The 65B(4) certificate was not necessary where the original electronic record itself was produced and proved—for example, by the owner or operator bringing the mobile phone or laptop containing the original information and testifying to its ownership or operation.
That is different from handing over a screenshot, exported chat, USB drive or CD said to contain information from the phone. Such an output may need the statutory certification because it is not the original information on the original device. Producing a device also does not remove objections about identity, relevance, alteration or the evidentiary weight of its contents.
Where the source is a large computer network, service-provider system or other infrastructure that cannot realistically be brought to court, the judgment emphasised the statutory route for proving the output through a certificate.
3. If the electronic record belongs to a third party, must the case fail?
No automatic answer follows merely from lack of possession. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that a party without control over the source computer receives a blanket exemption from certification. It explained that the party may seek the court’s assistance to summon the person or authority capable of issuing the certificate.
This distinction is important for call-detail records, CCTV systems controlled by a public authority, bank servers and similar records. A party should be able to show that the certificate was sought from the proper custodian, that the request was refused or unanswered, and that judicial assistance was pursued.
In the case before it, the Court recognised an exceptional situation where the parties had made all possible efforts, including through court orders, yet the relevant authorities failed to supply the proper certificate. It applied the principle that the law does not demand the impossible. That fact-specific conclusion must not be read as a general licence to file uncertified digital copies.
4. Can a certificate be filed later?
Section 65B did not itself prescribe a universal date by which certification had to be delivered. Arjun Panditrao explained that the certificate should ordinarily accompany the electronic output when it is produced, particularly where it is readily obtainable. If a defective certificate has been given or a third party has not supplied one, the trial court may require the responsible person to furnish it.
Timing nevertheless matters. In criminal proceedings, fair disclosure to the accused and the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s material remain essential. The decision is not authority for introducing a surprise electronic record or post-dated certification in a way that prejudices the defence.
The Supreme Court also stressed preservation of electronic records and metadata. If the source data has disappeared by the time a certificate is issued, the defence may lose the ability to test the record against the original system.
5. Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the corresponding BSA provisions
The judgment in Arjun Panditrao interpreted the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Sections 65A and 65B. For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which came into force on 1 July 2024, the current provisions must be separately examined. The old and new section numbers should not be treated as interchangeable without reading the updated text.
- Section 57 BSA — Primary evidence: corresponding broadly to Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act. Explanations 4–7 expressly deal with electronic records created or stored in multiple files, records produced from proper custody (unless disputed), simultaneously stored or transmitted videos, and automated storage spaces.
- Section 61 BSA — Electronic or digital records: electronic form alone does not deny admissibility or legal effect; the statutory recognition is expressly subject to Section 63.
- Section 62 BSA — Special provision for proving electronic records: the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63. This broadly corresponds to the role performed by Section 65A of the former Evidence Act.
- Section 63(1) BSA — Computer output: the conditions for treating a printout, stored, recorded or copied electronic output as a document admissible without production of the original. This broadly corresponds to Section 65B(1).
- Section 63(2)(a)–(d) BSA — Foundational conditions: regular use of the device, regular feeding of information, proper operation (or no impact from malfunction), and accurate derivation of the output. These broadly track Section 65B(2).
- Section 63(3) BSA — Multiple devices and systems: addresses computers or communication devices operating on a standalone system, network, information-processing resource or through an intermediary; compare Section 65B(3).
- Section 63(4)(a)–(c) BSA — Certificate: identification of the electronic record, particulars of the device and manner of production, satisfaction of the statutory conditions, and certification by the responsible person and an expert; compare Section 65B(4).
- Section 63(5) BSA — Interpretive provisions: addresses how information is supplied to a device and how electronic outputs may be produced.
- Section 170(2) BSA — Repeal and saving: identifies proceedings that continue under the repealed Indian Evidence Act.
6. How the new Section 63(4) certificate works
Section 63(4) BSA provides for submitting the certificate along with the electronic record at each instance where that record is submitted for admission. The certification covers the record, the device and the production process. The statutory wording refers to signature by the person in charge of the computer, communication device or management of the relevant activities, and an expert.
The Schedule to the BSA, read with Section 63(4)(c), prescribes two certificate components: Part A (Party) and Part B (Expert). It seeks particulars such as device or source type (mobile phone, DVR, computer, server, cloud storage), make and model, available identifiers, hash value and hashing algorithm, with a hash report annexed. A lawyer should use the prescribed form applicable to the proceeding rather than simply relabelling an old Section 65B certificate.
Section 57 and original electronic records: Arjun Panditrao held that the old Section 65B(4) certificate was unnecessary where an original electronic record was produced and proved as primary evidence. The BSA now contains expanded primary-evidence explanations in Section 57. However, Section 61 expressly refers back to Section 63, so whether a particular item is genuinely primary evidence and how it must be tendered require analysis under the new statute. A copied screenshot or extracted pen-drive file should not be casually described as an original merely to avoid certification.
7. Which law governs a case already pending on 1 July 2024?
The commencement date alone does not resolve the question. Under Section 170(2) BSA, an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal that was already pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as saved by that provision. Identify the relevant proceeding and its commencement date before filing or objecting to electronic evidence.
For example, a lawyer dealing with a newly instituted proceeding governed by the BSA should examine Sections 57, 61, 62 and 63 and the prescribed Schedule; a saved older proceeding may instead require the Section 65B(4) certificate under the former Act. The question should be answered from Section 170(2) and the actual procedural record, not a generic date printed on a certificate.
8. Practical preparation of CCTV, WhatsApp, CDR and other electronic evidence
- Identify the source: Is the evidence on the original phone or DVR, or is it an exported file, printout, copied CD or downloaded record?
- Preserve the original: Retain the device, original file, extraction details and relevant metadata. Do not rely only on a forwarded or edited version.
- Trace the person who can certify: For a server or third-party system, identify the custodian or responsible official and record requests made for certification.
- Match the applicable statute: Determine whether the matter is governed by the saved Evidence Act regime or the BSA, and prepare the required certificate accordingly.
- Deal with timing early: Seek missing certification or a court direction promptly, before preservation periods expire or the opposing party loses a fair chance to inspect the material.
- Separate admissibility from proof: A formally compliant certificate does not establish that the contents of a message are true, that a voice belongs to a named person, or that a recording has not otherwise been manipulated.
The point that is often missed
The central lesson of Arjun Panditrao is not that electronic records should be excluded on technicalities, nor that judges may overlook the statute whenever certification is inconvenient. The judgment requires counsel and courts to address both concerns: statutory assurance about the electronic output and a workable procedure to obtain certification from whoever controls the source.
For criminal defence, civil litigation, matrimonial disputes and commercial proceedings, a sound objection should identify whether the material is an original or an output, what certificate is required, whether it exists, and whether the alleged defect can properly be cured. Those questions are more useful than a blanket assertion that every screenshot is inadmissible.
Judgment and statutory references
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 — particularly paragraphs 45–50, 59 and 72.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Sections 61–63, Section 170 and the Schedule.
- Prescribed Section 63 certificate schedule (NCRB).
- Related reading: overview of Section 65B and BSA Section 63.
Editorial note (14 November 2026): This commentary concerns the statutory method of proving electronic records. Admissibility, objections, appropriate relief and transitional application depend on the particular proceeding and its evidence.
Related practice information: criminal proceedings and bail in Delhi.