In a landmark judgment on July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of India provided much-needed clarity on the admissibility of electronic records in legal proceedings. This decision has significant implications for the legal landscape, particularly in an era where digital documents are increasingly prevalent. The ruling addressed the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the conditions under which electronic records may be considered admissible evidence in court.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was introduced two decades ago through Act 21 of 2000. It was designed to accommodate the growing use of electronic records in legal matters. However, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, in a supplementary judgment, noted that this section had not kept pace with technological advancements or global legal practices.
Under Section 65B, an electronic record is deemed admissible without the need to present the original document, provided certain conditions are met. These include:
Furthermore, a responsible official must certify the electronic record under Section 65B(4), attesting to the authenticity of the document and the integrity of the computer system that produced it.
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal and others (2020) SCCOnline SC 571, resolved a critical legal question: Is the certificate under Section 65B(4) mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records?
The court overruled its previous judgment in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) and upheld the decision in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (2014), with a slight modification. The ruling clarified that the certificate is indeed mandatory unless the original device is produced in court by its owner. This certificate is crucial for establishing the reliability of the electronic record and must accompany the evidence when presented.
This judgment has a profound impact on how electronic evidence is treated in Indian courts. It ensures that digital documents are subject to rigorous checks for authenticity, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process. As digital communication and documentation become more prevalent, this ruling provides a clear legal framework for their admissibility in court.
While specific statistics on the use of electronic records in Indian courts are not readily available, a global trend indicates an increasing reliance on digital evidence. According to a survey by the International Data Corporation (IDC), over 90% of today's data is created and stored electronically. The legal industry is no exception to this trend, with courts around the world adapting to digital workflows.
The Supreme Court of India's decision on the admissibility of electronic records as evidence marks a significant step in aligning legal practices with modern technology. By clarifying the mandatory nature of the certificate under Section 65B(4), the court has set a precedent that ensures the reliability of digital evidence in legal proceedings.
For further reading on the Indian Evidence Act, readers can refer to the official document. Additionally, insights into global trends in digital evidence can be found in the IDC's report.
Ineligible Arbitrator can be challenged even in Pre- 2015 cases and at any point of time
Supreme Court of India in its recent Judgment dated 04th January 2022 pronounced by the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justices Mr M.R.Shah and Mrs Nagarathna in the case of Ellora Paper Mills held that the mandate of the arbitrator can be challenged at any point of time during the proceedings, in view of Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the 1996 Act.
The Impact of Limitation Act on MSMED Act Recovery Proceedings
In the realm of commercial disputes, the intersection of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, has been a subject of legal scrutiny. A landmark judgment by India's Supreme Court in the case of M/s Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr has shed light on whether the time constraints of the Limitation Act apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act. This decision has significant implications for businesses within the MSME sector, which is a powerhouse of economic growth and innovation in India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECOGNISES ENFORCEMENT OF EMERGENCY ARBITRATOR AWARD
Prior to 2010, if a party to an international arbitration requires to get an interim order, prior to formation of the arbitral tribunal, it was left with no other option other than approaching the appropriate National Court of the Respondent or the National Court having the jurisdiction over the subject matter covered under the application for interim order.
