Introduction:

In Shwetabh Singhal v. M/s J.K. and Sons & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 320, the Rajasthan High Court was confronted with an important question regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while disposing of a petition against an order of the Rent Tribunal, clarified that the certificate under Section 65B must be issued by the person who had lawful control and possession of the original device in which the electronic evidence was first recorded. It cannot be validly issued by someone who merely received or transferred the data into another device, such as a pen drive or compact disc. This ruling once again reaffirmed the position established by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, which laid down the mandatory requirement of a certificate from the custodian of the original device.

The case arose from a dispute where the respondent attempted to submit electronic evidence in the form of a video file stored in a pen drive and CD, accompanied by a Section 65B certificate issued by himself. The petitioner, Shwetabh Singhal, challenged this submission before the High Court, arguing that the video in question was not recorded in the respondent’s device but rather in the device of a third party. Since the respondent only transferred the recording from the original device into his pen drive and CD, his certificate was insufficient under the law. The petition raised a fundamental issue concerning the proper compliance with Section 65B and the evidentiary sanctity of digital records in judicial proceedings.

Arguments:

The petitioner’s argument was premised on the principle that the integrity of electronic evidence depends upon strict adherence to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He argued that when the video was not recorded in the respondent’s device, the respondent could not legitimately certify its authenticity or reliability. Instead, the certificate had to come from the person in charge of the original recording device at the relevant time. Without such a certificate, the evidence was inadmissible and could not be considered by the tribunal. The petitioner relied heavily on the binding precedent of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, wherein the Supreme Court had held that secondary electronic evidence, when presented through devices such as CDs, pen drives, or copies, is admissible only if it is accompanied by a proper certificate from the person who managed the device that originally recorded or stored the data. This, according to the petitioner, was essential to prevent manipulation, alteration, or tampering of digital evidence, which can otherwise be easily doctored.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the certificate issued by respondent no. 2 was sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 65B. They argued that the essential purpose of the provision was to ensure the authenticity of electronic records, and since respondent no. 2 had produced the pen drive and CD himself, he was competent to certify them. The respondents submitted that the insistence on a certificate from the person holding the original device was overly technical and would defeat the ends of justice, particularly in cases where the custodian of the original device was unavailable, uncooperative, or hostile. They argued that so long as the electronic evidence could be shown to be genuine and relevant, the court should not insist on rigid compliance with procedural requirements that could exclude potentially crucial material.

Judgement:

The High Court, after considering the rival contentions, examined the statutory framework of Section 65B and the judicial interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V.. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had explicitly held that the certificate under Section 65B must be issued only by the person who was in control of the device at the time when the electronic record was created or stored. This requirement was not merely procedural but substantive, designed to protect the evidentiary integrity of digital records. The High Court stressed that electronic evidence is inherently susceptible to tampering, alteration, and fabrication. Therefore, to ensure authenticity and reliability, the law mandates that only the custodian of the original device can certify the record.

Justice Dhand observed that in the present case, the respondent had produced a pen drive and CD containing a video recording but admitted that the video had originally been recorded on a different device belonging to a third party. Since the recording was not made on the respondent’s device, his Section 65B certificate was invalid. The Court explained that allowing such a certificate would undermine the safeguards built into Section 65B, as it would permit individuals to transfer data from one device to another and then self-certify it without the involvement of the actual custodian of the original recording. This would create loopholes and potentially compromise the fairness of judicial proceedings.

The Court further emphasized that Anvar P.V. remains binding precedent and has been consistently followed to ensure that the admissibility of electronic evidence is not compromised by procedural shortcuts. While it acknowledged the respondents’ concern about the difficulty of obtaining certificates from third parties, the Court held that the statutory requirement could not be diluted in the interest of convenience. If the respondents wished to rely on the video recording, they had to obtain a Section 65B certificate from the person who owned or controlled the device that originally recorded the video. Only then could the evidence be deemed admissible.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 was not valid and could not be accepted as compliance with Section 65B. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to produce the proper certificate from the custodian of the original device. This ensured that while the evidence was not outrightly excluded, it could only be considered once the legal requirements were fully met. With this clarification, the petition was disposed of.

This ruling carries significant implications for future litigation involving electronic evidence. First, it underscores the continued relevance of strict compliance with Section 65B, reaffirming that electronic evidence cannot be admitted merely on convenience or assumptions of authenticity. Second, it highlights the responsibility of litigants to trace the chain of custody of digital records and secure proper certification from the original source. Third, it reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining evidentiary integrity in an era where digital records form a substantial portion of evidence in both civil and criminal cases.

The judgment also strikes a balance between procedural rigor and substantive justice. By allowing the respondents to later produce the proper certificate, the Court ensured that potentially valuable evidence was not permanently excluded but would only be admitted once statutory safeguards were met. This approach reflects a nuanced understanding of the challenges posed by electronic evidence while remaining faithful to legislative intent and binding precedent.

In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Shwetabh Singhal v. M/s J.K. and Sons & Ors. is a reaffirmation of the principles governing electronic evidence under Indian law. It serves as a reminder to litigants, lawyers, and investigators that compliance with Section 65B is not optional but mandatory. Courts will insist upon certificates from the actual custodians of original devices, thereby preserving the integrity of digital evidence. The ruling strengthens the evidentiary framework at a time when digital data is increasingly central to disputes, ensuring that authenticity and reliability remain the cornerstone of justice.