The Dichotomy of the 65B Certificate
Analysing Trends with Regard to the Authentication of Electronic Evidence in India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.18.4Keywords:
Admissibility, Authenticity, E-Commerce, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Information Technology Act, 2000Abstract
It is a known fact as to how intricately interwoven electronic forms of communication and electronic media are in all aspects of life in the 21st century, including governance, crime and justice. This is widely recognised, and our reliance on technology is only bound to increase.Yet, development in legal literature does not occur synchronously. Where the pace oftechnology increases with time, legal developments that should ideally be concomitant, fall behind and often cause confusion, not only among the parties to the dispute in question, but also to lower Courts that seek to apply such principles in the future. One such nobly motivated legislative development is the 65B Certificate, the legal position with regard to which has seen multiple alternating views on the question of its mandatory nature with the latest developments delivered by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Shafhi Muhammad (2018) and Arjun Khotkar (2020). This paper discusses the changes that regulations dealing with the authentication of electronic evidence have undergone, post the introduction of the Section, analyses probable causes of the same and concludes with the contention that the current position of law may be inadequate.
References
Shafhi Muhammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC 714.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-26 of 2017, decided on 14/07.2020].
Carrie Morgan Whitcomb, An Historical Perspective of Digital Evidence: A Forensic Scientist’s View, 1(1) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE,https://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/9C4E695B-0B78-1059-3432402909E27BB4.pdf.
International Organization on Computer Evidence, G8; BUKHARD SCHAFER & STEPHEN MASON, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, in MASON S. & SENG D. (EDS.), ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 18-35 (2017).
§ 2(1)(t), Information Technology Act, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
§ 2(1)(r), Information Technology Act, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
Arvind M. Bhandarwar, Electronic Record, Its Proof and Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act,http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/%20ELectronic%20Record.pdf.
§ 4, Information Technology Act, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
Gordon E. Moore, Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits, http://www.monolithic3d.com/uploads/6/0/5/5/6055488/gordon_moore_1965_article.pdf.
Max Roser and Hannah Ritchie, Technological Progress, https:// ourworldindata.org/technological-progress.
DANIEL W. GRAHAM, HERACLITUS, THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, (Edward N. Zalta ed., Fall 2019 ed.), https:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/heraclitus/.
See, World Without Borders: E-mail and Cyberchat are Revolutionizing the Way We Live, The Week, at 12 (1999).
§ 610 A, Companies Act, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147.
Yahoo! Inc v. Akash Arora, 78 (1999) DLT 285.
Aradhya Sethia, Rethinking Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, 24(3) INT’L J. L. & INFO. TECH. 229 (2016).
RK Malkani v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 15.
Tejas Karia, Akhil Anand & Bahaar Dhawan, The Supreme Court of India re-defines admissibility of electronic evidence in India, 12 DIGITAL EVIDENCE AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE L. REV. 33-37.
See also, Bhairav Acharya, Anvar v. Basheer and the New (Old) Law of Electronic Evidence, https://cisindia.org/internet-governance/blog/anvar-v-basheer-new-old-law-ofelectronic-evidence.
Entry 9, Schedule II, Information Technology Act, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, UNGA Res 51/162, 16 December 1996 www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf.
§ 3(2), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1.
STEPHEN MASON AND ALLISON STANFIELD, AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 193–260 (2017).
HEATHER MACNEIL, TRUSTING RECORDS: LEGAL, HISTORICAL AND DIPLOMATIC PERSPECTIVES (2000).
LIVIA IACOVINO, RECORDKEEPING,ETHICS AND LAW 41 (2006).
Daniel K B Seng, Computer output as evidence, SING JLS 161–33.
Steven W. Teppler, Testable Reliability: A Modernized Approach to ESI Admissibility, 12 AVE MARIA L. REV. 213, 217, https://avemarialawlawreview.avemarialaw.edu/Content/articles/v12i2.Teppler.pdf.
§ 65A, Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
§ 65B (1), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
Great Western Rly. Co. v. Swіndon & Cheltenham Extensіon Rly. Co., (1884) 9 AC 787, 808.
Pannalal Bansіlal Patіl v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AІR 1996 SC 1023.
§ 65B (1), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, VOLUME 17 138 (4th ed.).
RATAN LAL AND DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (23rd Ed).
Bank of India v. Ahbhoy Mohammed, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 9.
Ashwini Vaidialingam, Authenticating Electronic Evidence: Sec. 65B, Indian Evidence Act 1872, 8 NUJS L. REV. 43 (2015)
§ 65B (1), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
§ 65B (2), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
§ 65B (3), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
§ 65B (4), Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
See Jagdeo Singh v. State, MANU/DE/0376/2015, 2015 CRI L.J. 3976 S.C.
Anvar PV v PK Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
Civil Evidence Act, Chapter 64, § 5, Acts of Parliament, (UK)(1872).PO Jagdeo Singh v. State, 2015 CRI L.J. 3976.
Ankur Chawla v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/DE/2923/2014; SK Saini v CBI, MANU/DE/2441/2015.
Kundan Singh v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13647.
Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/RH/1150/2015.
State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
R v. Shepard, 1993 AC 380 (U.K.).
US, Rule 1001(3), U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence (1972).
Sonu Amar v. State of Haryana, MANU/SCOR/14605/2013.
Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83.
Ram Singh and Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp.) SCC 611.
S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 178.
R v. Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464 and R v. Robson, (1972) 2 All ER 699.
Jatinder Pal Singh v. Krishan Kishore Bajaj, MANU/PH/2422/2018.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-26 of 2017, decided on 14/07.2020].
Vishaka & Ors.v.Stte of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC.
Ayush Mishra, The Conundrum of Certification of the Electronic Evidence,BLOG OF THE CENTRE FOR CRIMINAL LAW STUDIES, NLU JODHPUR https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/theconundrum-of certification-of-the-electronic-evidence/#_f
DAC Janet Williams QPM, The U.K. ACPO (Association of Chief Police
Officers) Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence, Version 5, ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF POLICE OFFICERS, (October, 2011), https://www.digitaldetective.net/digital- forensicsdocuments/ACPO_Good_Practice_Guide_for_Digital_Evidence_v5.pdf.§ 45A Indian Evidence Act, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
ACPO Guidelines, supra note 59, § 2.1.3.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 901, 902 (U.S.)(2015).
United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 40 (D.D.C. 2006).
HON. PAUL W. GRIMM, GREGORY P.JOSEPH, ESQ., DANIEL J. CAPRA, BEST PRACTICES FOR AUTHENTICATING DIGITAL EVIDENCE 9 (2016).
Vaidiyalingam, supra note 32, at 65.
Federal Rules of Evidence, 2015, Rule 902 (U.S.).
Williams v. Long, 585 F. Supp. 2d 679; Arvind M. Bhandarwar, Electronic Record, Its Proof and Certificate Under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/%20ELectronic%20Record.pdf.
Neeraj Aarora, Every Computer Output does not Require a 65B Certificate –IEA, 1872, CYBERPUNDIT BLOG, (Feb 28,2017), https:// cyberpandit.org/ ?article_post=every-computer-output-does-not-require-65b-certificateiea-1872.
