Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

Background of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

The judgement in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others revolves around the mandatory requirement of certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Supreme Court revisited the conflict between two prior cases, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, to provide clarity on this issue.

Facts of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar contested the election of Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, alleging electoral malpractice. Electronic evidence was a critical component of Khotkar’s case. The admissibility of this electronic evidence hinged on whether it complied with the certification requirements under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act.

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal was whether the certification requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic evidence and how this requirement should be practically applied.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal Judgement

1. Certification Requirement: The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reaffirmed the law laid down in Anvar P.V.’s case, holding that the certification requirement under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Court overruled the contrary view expressed in Shafhi Mohammad’s case.
2. Original Document Production: The Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal clarified that if the original electronic document itself is produced, there is no need for a certification under Section 65B(4). For instance, the owner of a laptop, tablet or mobile phone can produce the device and testify about the information it contains, thus obviating the need for a certificate.
3. Application for Certificate: In situations where a party cannot obtain the required certificate, the Court stated that an application can be made to the Judge for the production of the certificate by the concerned person or authority. This is particularly relevant when the party seeking to admit electronic evidence does not control the device on which the information is stored.
4. Stage for Filing Certificate: The certificate under Section 65B(4) must be furnished at the time the electronic record is produced in court. If a defective certificate is given or if the concerned person refuses to provide it, the trial Judge should summon the relevant person to produce the certificate.
5. Directions to Service Providers: The Court issued directions to cellular and internet service providers to maintain Call-Data Records (CDRs) and other relevant records for the period stipulated by law. These records must be preserved in a segregated and secure manner to ensure their availability during trials.
6. Framing of Rules: The Court suggested that appropriate rules should be framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and other relevant statutes, to regulate the retention, retrieval and production of electronic records. These rules should address issues like chain of custody, metadata preservation and secure record maintenance throughout the trial and appeal processes.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal Analysis

Reaffirmation of Anvar P.V. Case

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s case strongly reaffirmed the principles laid down in Anvar P.V.’s case. The mandatory nature of the certification requirement under Section 65B(4) was emphasised, highlighting the necessity for strict compliance to ensure the authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence.

Rejection of Shafhi Mohammad’s Case

By overruling Shafhi Mohammad’s case, the Court addressed the confusion that had arisen regarding the certification requirement. The Court’s clear stance that oral evidence cannot substitute the need for a certificate under Section 65B(4) reinforces the legislative intent behind this provision.

Practical Implications

The judgment provides practical solutions for parties unable to obtain the requisite certificate. By allowing applications to Judges for the production of certificates and by issuing directives to service providers for record maintenance, the Court has facilitated smoother implementation of Section 65B(4).

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal Case Summary

In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar versus Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Supreme Court of India addressed the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court reaffirmed the mandatory requirement of a certification under Section 65B(4) for electronic records to be admissible, overruling the more lenient stance in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

It clarified that original electronic documents do not require certification, while secondary evidence does. The judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal also provided a mechanism for obtaining certification through court applications if the party is unable to secure it. The Court’s directions to preserve electronic records enhance the reliability and availability of such evidence in legal proceedings.