Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 3(1A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines “electronic evidence” as any information generated, stored, or transmitted in electronic form, which was brought by the amendment through the Information Technology, 2000, providing legitimacy to electronic evidence during judicial proceedings. The main contention lies in balancing authenticity, reliability, and integrity of electronic evidence with fair and judicial proceedings. This is further complicated by the increase in cybercrimes across the country, which hinders the verification of evidence along its tampering. The Indian judiciary has relied on a pragmatic approach that lays emphasis on procedural fairness along with trustworthiness. As technology and cybercrimes sped up, there is a need to develop effective legislation to ensure the evidentiary value of electronic records, along with the rights of parties involved in legislation.
Legal Framework
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lays down the grounds for admissibility of electronic records as evidence, along with a provision for a mandatory certificate under subsection (4). The certificate must identify the record, the condition under which it was produced, the particulars of the device involved, along with compliance with the device’s normal functioning and lack of any grounds for fabrication of evidence, along with the signature of the official responsible for the device’s operation and management, affirming the reliability and authenticity of the evidence.
The authenticity bolsters the admissibility of evidence by detecting any alteration, digital signatures of any sort, ensuring its originality and non-repudiation. The judiciary has mandated the mandatory certificate as a precedent condition and could be summoned if not available earlier, prioritizing procedure over cyber threat, ensuring legitimacy.
Judicial Evolution
In the 2014 judgment of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, the Apex Court made mandatory the certificate under Section 65B (4) for admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence, repudiating previous liberal approaches. The case of State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601, laid down strict safeguards against the fabrication of digital evidence. The case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, held the certificate as “sine qua non” for admissibility and rejected waivers for non-accessibility as per incuriam overruling Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801.
The courts have also allowed exemptions in situations (not requiring a certificate initially) where evidence is device-produced or where the party producing it doesn’t have control over it to repudiate unfair exclusion over probative value. The contention for admissibility arises when it mingles with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, where the method of obtaining evidence is judged to exempt unlawfully obtained data, which is in line with Article 21 that protects against unauthorized surveillance.
Exceptions to Section 65B Certificate Requirement
The Section 65B(4) certificate, as established in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and through Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, is obligatory in nature. The case Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal vs. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) 7 SCC 1 concedes narrow exceptions in which the probative value can be considered by the courts over the rigidity of a procedure. They occur in situations of primary evidence of electronics, impossibility of certification, or specialized courts such as family courts. This freedom of the courts highlights a change in the balance between authenticity and access in the admissibility of electronic evidence.
A recent example is a matrimonial appeal (FAM No. XX/2025, decided November 2025), in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where Justices Vishal Dhagat and BP Sharma affirmed a divorce order on the basis of mobile photographs showing adultery of the wife, although no certificate of Section 65B was produced. The court believed that family courts derive their work under the subsection of the Family Courts Act of 1984, which allowed them to determine matters without adherence to the formalities of the Indian Evidence Act. The photographer testifying was enough to verify the images, unlike the Supreme Court directives and denials of appeals on the basis of Arjun Panditrao.
Some more exemptions are explained by the Supreme Court precedents: no certificate is required when the primary electronic records have been made directly off the device, since the presence of the secondary evidence is sufficient to raise the necessity, to which the certificate will be requested later.
These exceptions address the speed of justice in exceptional cases, as desired in your theme document of amending Section 65B of conditional waivers/technological presumptions of authenticity. They represent a practical judicial interpretation, which brings the usefulness of electronic evidence without interfering with integrity.
Challenges and Balancing Mechanisms
There lie many authenticity risks in the admissibility of electronic evidence, such as alteration or fabrication of metadata. This could be resolved through expert testimony and robust forensic protocols to verify data origin and tampering of evidence. The reliance of courts on digital forensic experts to trace the source of evidence, validation of hash rules further adds to the issue.
The requirement of a mandatory certificate under Section 65B (4) suffers due to procedural delays leading to prolonged incarceration before the trial period, further restricting timely access to vital electronic records. This could be resolved by technological advancements embedding trusted timestamps, blockchain-based immutable ledgers, and automated digital signatures to create a presumption of authenticity that reduces reliance on the certification process and expedites the delivery of justice.
In the international landscape, preference is given to electronic evidence over rigid procedures. The courts in the European Union and the United States have encouraged flexibility to analyse the authenticity of electronic records pragmatically rather than rejecting them for technical inconsistencies. The adoption of such international standards by the Indian judiciary can enhance its productivity, preserving data integrity and fairness in the digital era.
Emerging Threats: Deepfakes, AI-Manipulation & the Future of Authenticity
One of the most pressing issues regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence is the increasing prevalence of AI-produced content. This includes items such as deepfake videos and audio, manipulated screenshots, and digitally altered documents to create false written evidence. This growing number of available technologies is making it more difficult for courts to rely upon visual or sound evidence without going through a rigorous verification process.
As such, courts will likely begin to use more advanced forensic techniques to identify AI-generated content, such as deepfake documentation. More specifically, this may include AI-deepfake detection programs as well as advanced techniques that rely on error level analysis or machine learning algorithms. The combination of these types of scientific tests will give greater weight to evidence offered by experts designated under the state and federal evidence statutes, such as Sections 45A and 65B of the Evidence Act.
Ultimately, based on the growing use of AI to manipulate evidence, judges will need to create legal regulations and procedures that protect electronic records so that they can stand up against the increasing complexity of technology while still maintaining the integrity of electronic evidence used before the courts. Standards for preserving metadata, including timestamps and securely sealing digital records, are key to how the legal community will deal with new and evolving technologies. Together with current limits of AI manipulation of evidence, this will require the legal profession to recognize and accept the need to implement a forward-looking framework for digital evidence.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has steadily reshaped the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, most notably through Section 65B. Landmark judgments such as Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal(2020) 7 SCC 1 have solidified the requirement of certificates while rejecting blanket waivers. By insisting on procedural safeguards such as hash values, digital signatures, and a rigor‑tested chain of custody, courts strike a delicate balance: they protect against tampering while still respecting Article 21 privacy guarantees under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Yet, the system grapples with real‑world obstacles. Fabricated metadata, cumbersome certificate processes, and the resulting delays, sometimes extending pre‑trial detention, highlight the need for targeted reform. A pragmatic amendment to Section 65B could: Permit Conditional Waivers for device‑generated or third‑party records, provided they meet minimum technical veracity checks, Presume Authenticity for blockchain‑verified evidence, thereby reducing the burden of manual certification, and Integrate AI‑Driven Forensics that perform real‑time hash validation and enforce standardized digital custody protocols.
Such changes would mirror flexible EU and U.S. models that prioritize probative value over rigid formalities, expediting justice without compromising integrity. In essence, the proposed reforms would harmonize reliability with efficiency, empowering Indian courts to harness digital evidence swiftly while safeguarding Individuals’ rights and adapting to the pace of technological innovation.
This article is authored by Ms. Aarya Singh, student at Chanakya National Law University, Patna.
All efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published at Legally Flawless. However, Legally Flawless shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to oversight or otherwise. The users are advised to check the information themselves.
