IntroductionÂ
Electronic evidence has become a cornerstone of modern litigation. From emails to WhatsApp chats and video recordings, courts increasingly rely on digital records for evidence. The growing reliance on electronic evidence in legal proceedings has made it essential to scrutinize its authenticity and admissibility. Whether in civil disputes or criminal trials, electronic records often form a significant part of the evidence presented. However, the admissibility of such evidence is not absolute, it is governed by specific provisions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and related laws like the Information Technology Act, 2000. Understanding how to challenge the admissibility of electronic evidence is crucial in ensuring fair trial principles.Â
Understanding Admissibility vs. Handling of Electronic EvidenceÂ
Admissibility refers to whether evidence is legally acceptable in court. It concerns factors like relevance, authenticity, and compliance with procedural requirements. Handling, on the other hand, involves the collection, preservation, and presentation of evidence.Â
For instance, an email may be presented in court, but if it lacks the proper certification or shows signs of tampering, it could be declared inadmissible. The focus here is on ensuring that electronic evidence meets legal standards before it can influence the outcome of a trial.Â
Â
Key Provisions in the Admissibility of Electronic Evidence Â
Electronic records are recognized as documents under Section 2(d)Â of the BSA. To qualify as admissible evidence, electronic records must meet certain statutory requirements. Key provisions include:Â Â
Evidence Classification under the BSA:Â
Sections 57, 58, and 64 of the BSA collectively define the classification and admissibility of evidence, particularly focusing on electronic and digital records:Â
a) Primary Evidence (Section 57):Â Electronic or digital records produced from proper custody are considered primary evidence, provided their authenticity is not disputed.Â
b) Secondary Evidence (Sections 58 & 64): Certified copies, oral accounts, or other forms of reproductions of electronic records are deemed secondary evidence. Section 64 further elaborates on the circumstances under which such secondary evidence is admissible in legal proceedings.Â
Â
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now incorporated under the BSA):Â
Mandates a certification for any electronic record submitted as secondary evidence. This certificate must establish the integrity and authenticity of the electronic record. Â
Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000:Â
Provides for the appointment of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence, whose expert opinion is relevant in proving the authenticity of electronic records.Â
Grounds for Challenging the Admissibility of Electronic EvidenceÂ
Litigators can contest electronic evidence on several grounds:Â
Lack of Proper Certification:Â
Section 65B of the IT Act mandates a certificate accompanying electronic records.Â
Evidence without this certificate can be deemed inadmissible, as clarified in the landmark case Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014).Â
Authentication Issues:Â
The party submitting the evidence must prove its source and reliability.Â
For example, emails or server logs must clearly indicate their origin and integrity.Â
Tampering or Alteration:Â
Any sign of tampering, such as missing metadata or broken chain of custody, can lead to rejection.Â
Courts rely heavily on the chain of custody to ensure evidence has not been altered.Â
Relevance and Materiality:Â
Evidence must directly relate to the facts in issue. Irrelevant evidence, no matter how authentic, can be excluded.Â
Â
Role of Section 65B CertificationÂ
Under Section 65B of the IT Act, a certificate must accompany electronic evidence. This certification ensures:Â
Identification of the electronic record and the device that produced it.Â
A statement confirming that the record was produced through a reliable computer system.Â
Details of the system’s functioning during the period in question.Â
Certification by a person occupying a responsible official position concerning the operation of the relevant device.Â
Without this certificate, electronic evidence cannot be admitted, as clarified in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020).Â
Landmark Judgments on Evolution of Admissibility StandardsÂ
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005): This case introduced the acceptance of electronic records without stringent scrutiny, provided they were relevant to the matter at hand.Â
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): This landmark judgment overruled earlier precedents and clarified that secondary evidence of electronic records is inadmissible without compliance with Section 65B.Â
Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP (2015): Emphasized the importance of maintaining the chain of custody for admissibility.Â
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020): The Supreme Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of Section 65B certification for admissibility and allowed for retrospective submission of certificates in certain circumstances.Â
Differentiating Civil and Criminal CasesÂ
The process of challenging electronic evidence varies significantly between civil and criminal cases due to differing standards of proof and objectives.Â
Civil Cases:Â In civil disputes, the focus is on proving rights and obligations. The standard of proof is based on a preponderance of probabilities. Electronic evidence, such as emails, messages, or digital contracts, must meet admissibility requirements, but courts may adopt a more lenient approach compared to criminal proceedings.Â
Criminal Cases: Criminal trials require evidence to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, electronic evidence is subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The authenticity, chain of custody, and compliance with legal procedures are critical in determining admissibility.Â
Â
Grounds to Challenge AdmissibilityÂ
Challenging the admissibility of electronic evidence requires identifying specific flaws or violations. Common grounds include:Â
Authenticity and Integrity:Â
Question the reliability of the source and the possibility of tampering.Â
Example: Evidence from a compromised system lacking forensic validation.Â
Non-Compliance with Section 65B Certification:Â
Absence of a valid certificate renders the evidence inadmissible.Â
Relevant Case: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)Â clarified the mandatory nature of certification.Â
Improper Collection or Retrieval Methods:Â
Evidence collected without adhering to procedural safeguards, such as warrants, can be challenged.Â
Unverified Metadata:Â
Metadata discrepancies can indicate tampering or fabrication of electronic records.Â
Chain of Custody Issues:Â
Highlight any breaks in the chain of custody or improper storage of electronic records.Â
Â
ConclusionÂ
Challenging the admissibility of electronic evidence is a nuanced process that requires a thorough understanding of legal provisions and judicial precedents. The BSA, 2023, coupled with landmark judgments, provides a robust framework to ensure that only reliable and authentic electronic evidence is admitted in court. By adhering to these principles, the integrity of judicial proceedings can be safeguarded, and the misuse of electronic evidence can be prevented.Â
Comentarios