Question

Which of the following statements is not true with respect to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

• A. The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”), is a condition precedent to the admissibility of an electronic record in evidence.
• B. In P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer, the court held that Section 65B is a “complete code” for electronic evidence.
• C. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that courts could admit electronic records such as printouts and compact discs (CDs) as prima facie evidence without authentication.
• D. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 – landmark judgment stands as the latest interpretation of the relevant provisions, offering a consistent approach in line with the legislative intent.

Hint:

Remember the evolution: Navjot Sandhu (allowed bypass) was overruled by P.V. Anvar (strict compliance required). Section 65B is now the mandatory "gatekeeper" for electronic evidence!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Section 65B was introduced to govern the admissibility of electronic records. The judicial interpretation of this section has evolved significantly over the years.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Statements (A), (B), and (D) are legally accurate reflections of the current law and judicial precedents regarding Section 65B.
- Statement (C) is not true because the Navjot Sandhu judgment (2005) essentially bypassed the requirement of Section 65B authentication by allowing electronic records to be admitted under other provisions of the Evidence Act. This approach was explicitly overruled by the later judgment in P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer (2014), which established that Section 65B is the mandatory and "complete code" for electronic evidence.

Step 3: Final Answer:
Since Navjot Sandhu was overruled regarding the bypass of authentication, statement (C) is the "not true" statement.

Answer 2

The question asks which statement about Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not true. Checking each statement against the settled case law on electronic evidence identifies the false one.

1. The Section 65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility: This reflects the settled position that without the certificate, an electronic record cannot be admitted in evidence, a requirement reaffirmed by the higher judiciary. This statement is accurate.
2. P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer held that Section 65B is a "complete code": This is a correct description of that 2014 judgment, which held that Section 65B exhaustively governs the admissibility of electronic records, displacing reliance on general provisions for secondary evidence. This statement is accurate.
3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu held that electronic records like printouts and CDs could be admitted as prima facie evidence without authentication: While Navjot Sandhu did take this permissive approach in 2005, that position was subsequently and expressly overruled by P.V. Anvar in 2014, which held that such records cannot be admitted without a Section 65B certificate. Presenting Navjot Sandhu's approach as good, current law is therefore false, since it no longer reflects the operative legal position.
4. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal is the latest interpretation, consistent with legislative intent: This accurately describes the 2020 decision as the most recent authoritative word on Section 65B, clarifying and reaffirming the certificate requirement while addressing practical difficulties in obtaining it. This statement is accurate.

Three of the four statements correctly describe the current, settled law on Section 65B; only the description of Navjot Sandhu as reflecting an unauthenticated-admissibility rule is false, since that position was overruled.

Therefore, the correct answer is In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that courts could admit electronic records such as printouts and compact discs (CDs) as prima facie evidence without authentication.