Question

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

• A. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 stands as the latest interpretation of the relevant provisions.
• B. The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic evidence.
• C. In P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer, the Court held that Section 65B is a complete code for electronic evidence.
• D. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, electronic records could be admitted without strict compliance of Section 65B.

Hint:

For electronic evidence questions, remember the sequence: Navjot Sandhu \(\rightarrow\) P.V. Anvar \(\rightarrow\) Arjun Panditrao. The latest authoritative position requires compliance with Section 65B.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Concept: Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility of electronic records such as emails, digital documents, CDs, videos, computer outputs, and electronic communications. With increasing reliance on technology, courts have developed detailed principles governing electronic evidence.

Step 1: Understanding the importance of Section 65B.
Electronic records are secondary copies generated through computers and electronic devices. To ensure authenticity and reliability, the law requires compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 65B. One of the most important requirements is the production of a certificate under Section 65B(4).

Step 2: Examining the major Supreme Court decisions.
In P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer the Supreme Court held that Section 65B is a complete code governing electronic evidence. Subsequently, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal the Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the certificate requirement.

Step 3: Identifying the incorrect statement.
The earlier decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu had permitted a more relaxed approach regarding electronic evidence. However, that approach was later overruled and superseded by subsequent judgments. Therefore, statement (D) does not represent the current legal position and is the statement that is not true in the present legal framework. Hence, \[ \boxed{\text{Option (D) is the correct answer}} \]

Answer 2

The question is asking which statement about Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is inaccurate, and each option can be checked against the settled line of Supreme Court authority on electronic evidence.

1. Option (A) - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar as the latest interpretation: This 2020 decision of a three-judge bench is indeed the most recent and authoritative pronouncement on Section 65B, resolving conflicting earlier views. This statement is accurate.
2. Option (B) - the certificate as a condition precedent: Both P.V. Anvar and Arjun Panditrao confirm that a Section 65B(4) certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence to be admissible, making it a condition precedent rather than a mere formality. This statement is accurate.
3. Option (C) - Section 65B as a complete code in P.V. Anvar: That is exactly what the Court held in P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer, treating Section 65B as a self-contained, exhaustive provision for electronic evidence. This statement is accurate.
4. Option (D) - Navjot Sandhu allowing admission without strict compliance: This describes a position that has since been disapproved by the later, larger bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, which reaffirmed that the certificate requirement cannot be dispensed with. As the law stands today, this description of the admissibility of electronic evidence is no longer accurate.

Since three of the four statements accurately reflect settled law on Section 65B and only the description of relaxed admissibility does not, that is the one that fails to hold up.

The correct answer is the statement about State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu allowing admission without strict compliance of Section 65B.