The case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) stands as a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court of India that profoundly influenced the admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian jurisprudence. Central to the case was the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which governs the admissibility of electronic records.

Background:
The dispute originated from the 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, where Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal were opposing candidates. Khotkar emerged victorious, but Gorantyal contested the election results, claiming electoral misconduct and breaches of the Model Code of Conduct. A significant element of Gorantyal's argument relied on electronic evidence, including WhatsApp messages and video footage, which were essential to substantiate his claims.

However, the electronic evidence submitted by Gorantyal lacked the requisite certificates outlined in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 sparking debates over its admissibility. This scenario highlighted the necessity to clarify how electronic records should be regarded in legal contexts, especially given their critical role in determining case outcomes.

Legal Issues:
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:
The primary question was whether electronic records, such as WhatsApp messages and video recordings, could be accepted as evidence without a certificate compliant with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Section delineates the criteria for the admissibility of electronic records, emphasizing the need for a certificate to validate the electronic document.

Mandatory Nature of Section 65B Certificate:
The court needed to interpret whether the certificate stipulated under Section 65B (4) is obligatory for admitting electronic evidence or if exceptions could exist.

Supreme Court's Judgment:
On July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of India rendered its verdict, providing essential clarity on the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Mandatory Requirement of Section 65B Certificate:
The Court determined that possessing a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) is obligatory for the admissibility of electronic records. This certificate is pivotal for validating the electronic evidence and assuring its dependability. The ruling stated that, in the absence of this certificate, electronic evidence cannot be accepted in court, regardless of its relevance to the case.

Exception in Certain Cases:
Recognizing there could be unique situations where obtaining a Section 65B certificate may be impractical or exceedingly difficult, the Court permitted some latitude. Nonetheless, it stressed that exceptions would be evaluated individually, and the court has the discretion to admit electronic evidence without the certificate, provided the integrity of the evidence is upheld.

Impact on Previous Rulings:
This ruling effectively overruled earlier conflicting decisions made in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018). In Anvar P.V., the Supreme Court had affirmed that a Section 65B certificate was necessary, while Shafhi Mohammad suggested it might not be needed in certain cases. The verdict in Arjun Panditrao clarified this inconsistency by reaffirming the compulsory nature of the certificate while allowing for limited exceptions.

Implications:
The judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal has significant implications for how electronic evidence is treated legally in India:

Adherence to Procedural Requirements:
The ruling emphasizes the necessity of following procedural protocols when submitting electronic evidence in court. It ensures that electronic records are properly authenticated, which is vital in an era where digital evidence plays an increasingly crucial role in legal matters.

Impact on Election Disputes:
Given the context of an electoral dispute in this case, the judgment is particularly relevant for the treatment of electronic evidence in election petitions, highlighting the importance for candidates and legal representatives to ensure that electronic records are duly certified for court admissibility.

Guidance for Lower Courts:
The Supreme Court offered direction to lower courts on managing electronic evidence, especially in instances, where obtaining a Section 65B certificate is challenging. This guidance aids lower courts in addressing the intricacies of electronic evidence while ensuring the integrity of legal processes.

Future Legal Precedents:
This case establishes a precedent for future matters concerning electronic evidence, affirming a legal framework that evolves alongside technological advancements. It also resolves the discrepancies present in prior rulings, thereby providing clearer standards for the admissibility of electronic records.

Main Points in the Case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal:

• In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the ruling from Anvar P.V.'s case, establishing that the certification mandate under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) is essential for accepting electronic evidence. This decision also overruled the opposing opinion expressed in Shafhi Mohammad's case.
   
• The Court clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal that if the original electronic document is presented, a certification under Section 65B (4) is unnecessary. For example, an individual can present their laptop, tablet, or mobile phone and testify about the information contained within, eliminating the need for a certificate.
   
• When a party is unable to secure the required certificate, the Court indicated that an application could be made to the Judge for the certificate to be produced by the relevant person or authority. This is especially pertinent when the party wishing to introduce electronic evidence does not possess control over the device storing the information.
   
• Testimony given orally cannot replace a certificate as stipulated in Section 65B (4).
   
• The judge can require the certificate to be presented at any point as long as the trial is still ongoing.
   
• If a certificate has been requested from the relevant person or authority, and that person or authority either denies the request or fails to respond, the party may subsequently seek a court order for the certificate by utilizing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
   
• If the certificate is not submitted despite a court order, its production is considered excused based on the principles of lex non cogit ad impossibilia and impotentia excusat legem.
   
• As the dictum in Sonu v. State of Rajasthan has not been touched, an important rider is that in cases where the electronic evidence is allowed to come on record without any objection, it will then not be open to any party to dispute its admissibility at a later stage.
   
• The certificate as stipulated in Section 65B (4) must be submitted when the electronic record is presented in court. In cases where the certification is inadequate or the responsible individual refuses to provide it, the trial Judge should call upon that person to present the certificate.
   
• The Court instructed cellular and internet service providers to retain Call-Data Records (CDRs) and other pertinent records for the duration mandated by law. These records must be stored securely and separately to ensure their availability during trial proceedings.
   
• The Court recommended that suitable regulations be established under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and other applicable laws to govern the retention, retrieval, and presentation of electronic records. These regulations should cover aspects such as chain of custody, preservation of metadata, and secure maintenance of records throughout the trial and appeals.

Conclusion:
The case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) is a crucial judgment that has significantly influenced the future of electronic evidence in Indian courts. By confirming the obligatory nature of the Section 65B certificate, the Supreme Court has raised the bar for the validation of electronic records, ensuring their trustworthiness and integrity. This ruling also signifies the judiciary's endeavour to adjust to the challenges posed by technological progress while preserving the rule of law.

It was further stated that original electronic documents do not need to be certified, whereas secondary evidence does. The ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal also established a procedure for seeking certification through court applications in cases where a party is unable to obtain it on their own. The Court's instructions for the preservation of electronic records improve the trustworthiness and accessibility of this type of evidence in legal cases.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565