The realm of electronic evidence in Indian courts has been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate, characterized by complexities surrounding Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This article, featured on Manupatra, meticulously dissects the intricacies and evolution of the admissibility of electronic evidence, shedding light on pivotal legal interpretations that have shaped this domain.
At the crux lies the debate on the necessity of a Section 65B certificate for the admissibility of electronic evidence and the critical question of its timing in legal proceedings. Deciphering conflicting judgments, the judiciary has grappled with whether the certificate is mandatory or merely a procedural formality, particularly when original electronic records are available.
The landmark case of Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kishanrao stands as a beacon of clarity amidst the legal intricacies. It delineates that a Section 65B certificate is imperative when presenting electronic evidence as secondary evidence, not when the original record is produced. The judgment elucidates a unified approach, distinguishing between civil and criminal cases while outlining stringent criteria for the certificate’s content and issuance.
Furthermore, the article accentuates the judiciary’s stance on the content and submission of certificates, emphasizing the importance of responsible identification and precise detailing of the electronic record’s production.
This comprehensive analysis serves as a definitive guide, navigating the nuanced landscape of electronic evidence in Indian courts. The judgment’s precedence promises a standardized approach, ensuring a fair and judicious assimilation of electronic evidence, pivotal in an era shaped by technological advancements.
For an in-depth exploration of the evolving terrain of electronic evidence admissibility, access the full article here.