Admissibility of electronic records
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with admissibility of electronic records. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: –– (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether–– (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, –– (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub- person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section, –– (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
Explanation. ––For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.]
Section 65B, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 63 Admissibility of electronic records Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 3
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A certificate under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of an electronic record. Anvar P.V. is affirmed; Shafhi Mohammad is overruled on this point. The certificate may be produced later if the electronic record is already before the court, subject to the trial court's directions.
On this section: s.65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent; Anvar affirmed, Shafhi Mohammad overruled on this point.
-
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 65B is a special law for electronic records. Secondary evidence under sections 63/65 cannot be used to prove an electronic record if the 65B procedure is not followed. A 65B(4) certificate is required.
On this section: s.65B is special law; electronic records cannot be proved via ss. 63/65 without the 65B certificate.
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.
On this section: Mandatory requirement of a certificate for admissibility of electronic records.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Certification requirement for electronic records; video recording must be certified to be admissible as evidence
-
V. Sivankutty vs The State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliamentary privileges and immunities granted under Article 194 of the Constitution are functional in nature, designed to enable elected representatives to perform their legislative duties without hindrance. These privileges do not extend to criminal acts such as destruction of public property, and no elected representative can claim exemption from the application of criminal law. Acts of vandalism and destruction of public property committed within the precincts of the legislature are not protected by parliamentary privilege and can be prosecuted without prior sanction of the Speaker. The withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be evaluated not merely on the basis of good faith but also on whether it subserves the administration of justice and does not cause manifest injustice. In cases involving destruction of public property and breach of public trust by elected representatives, the court must scrutinize the gravity of the offence and its impact on public life before granting consent to withdrawal.
On this section: Section 65B requires certification for electronic records. The Court noted that evidentiary issues regarding certification are to be determined at trial, not at the withdrawal stage
-
Punit Gupta vs Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment consists of the following propositions: (1) Contempt jurisdiction requires wilful, knowing, intentional, and deliberate disobedience of an unambiguous court order; a plausible alternative interpretation given to the respondent negates wilful disobedience. (2) When a court judgment uses language such as 'permit to work and pay regular salary as and when it accrues,' it does not encompass a mandate for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the date of original termination unless expressly stated. (3) Back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement; they require express court direction. (4) When a court grants liberty to an administrative authority to pass a fresh reasoned order, and such order is passed on the basis of a genuine factual conclusion that an entire selection process is vitiated and segregation of candidates is impossible, the requirement to provide individual hearing to affected parties may not apply—as per exceptions established in O. Chakradhar and subsequent precedents. (5) The correctness of factual conclusions regarding viability of segregation is not to be reviewed in contempt proceedings but in substantive writ jurisdiction. (6) Contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to grant fresh relief or reinterpret original judgments beyond their plain language; it is confined to enforcement of clear, unambiguous directions.
On this section: Authentication of electronic evidence and computer-generated records; applied to examination data certificates
-
Anchar Sekh vs Laxmi Tunga
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged recruitment irregularities and manipulation, mass interim termination of appointed employees should not be directed without: (i) completion of investigation establishing fraud through cogent evidence; (ii) proper examination of the admissibility of electronically stored evidence under applicable Rules of Evidence; (iii) clear demonstration of gross illegality at the interim stage; (iv) provision of due process and opportunity of hearing to affected employees; and (v) comprehensive consideration of the proportionality and necessity of such drastic action. Statutory bodies must exercise their powers independently and not merely at the direction of courts. Division Benches of High Courts should conduct substantive hearings on complex recruitment disputes involving multiple litigants rather than piece-meal interim determinations.
On this section: Admissibility of electronically stored data and digital evidence; necessity to establish authenticity and integrity of electronic records before relying upon them
-
Jagdish Chandra vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Hard discs on which intercepted telephone conversations have been recorded are electronic records and therefore documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) read with Section 207(v) CrPC. The prosecution is obliged to furnish to the accused copies of only such documents that it proposes to rely upon as indicated in the charge sheet or of those already sent to the court during investigation. At the pre-charge stage, the trial court cannot direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than those which it proposes to rely upon. However, where the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution is relying upon certain documents, the accused must be given access to those documents. In the instant case, the scope of the APFSL examination was to certify that the hard discs were properly functioning and that the calls copied on to the CDs were true copies of the original recordings in the hard discs. Only to this extent can it be said that the hard discs are being relied upon by the prosecution. The certification in terms of Section 65B(4) EA does not obviate the statutory requirement under Section 207(v) of providing to the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document. Therefore, the accused should be permitted to listen to the original recordings of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution by having the said original recordings played directly from the hard discs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, their counsel and the learned Judge.
On this section: Admissibility of electronic records and computer output; conditions for admissibility without production of original
-
PRIYA RAO vs NIL
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple persons are admitted as Class-1 heirs in a petition for a succession certificate, the certificate must be issued jointly to all such heirs regardless of informal internal arrangements, unless a legal relinquishment is recorded.
On this section: Admissibility of electronic records/certificates.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… In these review petitions, the challenge is raised principally on four grounds: - (a) The concerned Courts committed error in allowing call records to be admitted in evidence, in the absence of an appropriate certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 6 . <sup>6</sup> "the Evidence Act", for short. - (b) The disclosure statements of the review petitioner must be taken to be inadmissible on account of illtreatment meted out to him during the intervening night between his actual arrest and his formal arrest. - (c) The …
-
… Singh, Technical and Delivery Head of the testing agency, wherein he stated that the examination data was kept in the cloud only for a month, after which it was downloaded onto the 'local environment' the hard disk. Further, the testing agency had itself accepted in the certificate provided to the SIT under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[39]( page-34-2), that the original primary data had been deleted and the backup data does not contain any system logs. And that, the deletion of primary server data made it impossible <span id="page-34-0"></span><sup>37</sup>(2006) 1 SCC 496 <span …
Questions about Section 65B
What have the courts held on Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal (14 Jul 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent; Anvar affirmed, Shafhi Mohammad overruled on this point. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 65B, section 65B IEA, section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. People searching for it also type evidence act 65b certificate and evidence act 65b new section. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal (14 Jul 2020).
What should I read with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 63 (Admissibility of electronic records), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, commonly called electronic evidence, and cited as IEA 65B, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
- 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts654 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.