In the modern digital era, the role of technology in crime detection, litigation, and adjudication has increased significantly. From cybercrimes and financial frauds to everyday communication like emails and messages, digital records are often at the center of legal disputes. As a result, digital evidence has emerged as a crucial form of proof in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, the legal system must strike a balance between the ease of producing such evidence and ensuring its authenticity and reliability.
Digital evidence refers to any information stored or transmitted in binary form that may be relied upon in court. It includes emails, text messages, call logs, CCTV footage, GPS data, server logs, social media content, and computer files, among others. Since such data can be easily altered or manipulated, courts require that it be produced and preserved in a manner that guarantees its integrity and prevents tampering. This has necessitated the evolution of special legal provisions to deal with the admissibility of electronic records.
The primary legislation governing the admissibility of digital evidence in India is the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as amended by the Information Technology Act, 2000. The most significant provision is Section 65B, which deals with the admissibility of electronic records. It states that any information contained in an electronic record, if produced as evidence, must be accompanied by a certificate that satisfies the conditions laid out under Section 65B(4). This certificate is crucial as it authenticates the manner in which the data was produced, the computer involved, and the identity of the person responsible for generating it.
Judicial interpretations have played a vital role in shaping the understanding of Section 65B. In the landmark case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Supreme Court initially held that even in the absence of a Section 65B certificate, digital evidence could be admitted if the original device was produced. However, this view was later overruled in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), where the Court held that the certificate under Section 65B is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records. This position was reaffirmed in the Constitution Bench judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), which settled the law by declaring the 65B certificate a condition precedent to the admissibility of such records.
Recognizing the growing importance of digital evidence, the Government of India introduced the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which aims to replace the colonial-era Indian Evidence Act. This new legislation retains the fundamental principles of Section 65B but reorganizes them under Sections 63 to 65. It also introduces greater clarity around the presumption of authenticity, especially when digital records are produced from secure and government-verified repositories, making the process more efficient while preserving evidentiary integrity.
Despite these developments, several challenges persist in the admissibility of digital evidence. Firstly, law enforcement agencies often lack the technical expertise required to handle and preserve electronic records in a legally admissible manner. Secondly, issues like tampering, forgery, and the ease of data manipulation raise serious concerns about the credibility of such evidence. Thirdly, there are frequent delays in producing the required 65B certificate, which often leads to the exclusion of important evidence. Lastly, with much of the data being stored on cloud servers located outside India, jurisdictional and cross-border data retrieval issues complicate the matter further.
To overcome these challenges, legal practitioners and investigators must follow best practices while dealing with digital evidence. Maintaining a proper chain of custody, using certified forensic tools, recording metadata, and promptly obtaining Section 65B certificates can significantly strengthen the admissibility and probative value of digital records. Courts too must ensure that evidence is not excluded purely on technical grounds if its authenticity and relevance can otherwise be established in the interest of justice.
The Indian judiciary is gradually embracing digital transformation, with virtual court hearings, e-filings, and digital cause lists becoming the norm. However, the legal framework must continue to evolve to meet the growing challenges posed by technology. Proper training for judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials is essential to ensure the efficient use of digital evidence without compromising due process or the rights of the accused.
In conclusion, digital evidence has become indispensable in modern litigation. While India’s legal framework has made commendable progress in laying down rules for its admissibility, consistent implementation, technical expertise, and procedural discipline are necessary to fully harness its potential. The law must keep pace with innovation to ensure that justice is not just delivered but delivered digitally and fairly.
contributed by- Tulip Raghav (intern)