Overview:
A recent verdict by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has clarified the crucial requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as a prerequisite for admitting electronic records in evidence. The decision resolves a discrepancy arising from conflicting judgments, offering clear guidance on the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Evidence Act.
Admissibility Criteria:
Section 65B(1) outlines that information in electronic records becomes admissible as a document if certain conditions in Section 65B(2) are met. Notably, Section 65B(4) mandates the production of a certificate identifying the electronic record and detailing its production. The Supreme Court emphasized that this certificate is mandatory for admissibility.
Judicial Evolution:
The ruling overturns previous decisions deviating from the Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer judgment, establishing Section 65B as a comprehensive code for admissibility of electronic evidence. The Court clarified that Section 65B prevails over Sections 63 and 65, with the certificate under Section 65B(4) being an essential requirement.
Supreme Court’s Clarifications:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of Section 65B(4) and clarified that Anvar’s last sentence needs a nuanced reading. The Court also addressed practical scenarios, noting that oral evidence cannot replace the Section 65B(4) certificate. It outlined a process for obtaining the certificate when the person or authority refuses, ensuring fair access to electronic evidence.
Future Directions:
In addition to its legal implications, the verdict includes general directions to cellular companies and internet service providers for maintaining records. The Court highlighted the need for rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000, ensuring data retention, chain of custody, and preservation of metadata during trials and appeals.
Commentary:
This landmark decision provides clarity on the conditions for admitting electronic evidence, resolving inconsistencies and setting a precedent for future cases. The Supreme Court’s directives on data retention guidelines are welcomed for enhancing the efficiency of criminal and investigative proceedings. The decision also acknowledges equitable considerations when parties make reasonable efforts to obtain Section 65B(4) certificates. Furthermore, the Court’s reflection on international practices may influence potential amendments to the Evidence Act in the future.