Evidence Law

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer

(2014) 10 SCC 473

Facts

The dispute arose from an election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly.
Anvar P.V. challenged the election of P.K. Basheer.
He alleged corrupt electoral practices involving:
songs;
speeches;
announcements;
campaign material.
Electronic recordings stored on:
CDs;
other copied media, were produced to prove the alleged campaign content.
The persons producing the copies did not furnish certificates satisfying Section 65B(4).
The High Court rejected the election petition.
Before the Supreme Court, Anvar argued that:
the recordings could be admitted as ordinary secondary evidence;
Sections 63 and 65 allowed proof through witnesses who had seen or heard the relevant material.
The earlier decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu had permitted electronic records to be proved through general secondary-evidence rules even without Section 65B compliance.

Whether electronic copies can be proved through the general secondary-evidence provisions.
Whether Section 65B is a mandatory and self-contained rule.
Whether the CDs were admissible without the statutory certificate.

Sections 65A and 65B form a special code for electronic records.
Special provisions governing electronic evidence prevail over general documentary-evidence rules.
Where an electronic record is produced through a computer output, admissibility requires:
compliance with Section 65B(2);
a certificate under Section 65B(4).
The certificate should identify:
the record;
the method of production;
the relevant device;
compliance with statutory operational conditions.
Oral evidence cannot substitute for mandatory certification of a copied electronic record.
The original device or original electronic record may stand differently where it is itself produced and directly proved.
Under the BSA, Sections 62 and 63 now specially govern electronic records and certification.

The CDs were not the original recording equipment.
They were electronic copies generated from another device or system.
Therefore, they were secondary electronic evidence.
The Court rejected the argument that the party could bypass Section 65B by relying upon Sections 63 and 65.
Such an interpretation would make the special electronic-evidence provisions unnecessary.
Electronic copies create particular reliability risks:
editing;
duplication;
alteration;
incomplete copying;
unidentified source devices.
The certificate supplies a statutory assurance concerning:
source;
process;
system operation;
integrity.
No valid certificate accompanied the campaign CDs.
Witnesses who asserted that the recordings were genuine could not cure the statutory defect.
Because the electronic records were inadmissible, the allegations depending upon them could not be established.
The Court expressly disapproved Navjot Sandhu to the extent that it allowed electronic copies to be proved through ordinary secondary evidence.
The judgment did not declare that electronic evidence is inherently unreliable.
It insisted that reliability must be established through the special procedure chosen by Parliament.
Arjun Panditrao later affirmed this central rule and clarified that the certificate may, in suitable circumstances, be produced later or obtained through court assistance.

The Supreme Court held that the CDs were inadmissible because Section 65B had not been complied with.
Sections 65A and 65B provide the exclusive method for proving secondary electronic records.
General secondary-evidence provisions cannot be used to avoid the certificate.
Navjot Sandhu was overruled to the contrary extent.
The election challenge failed because the alleged electronic campaign material had not been legally proved.