Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
The judgment that settled how electronic evidence is proved in Indian courts — making the Section 65B certificate a mandatory condition for admitting secondary electronic records.
Decided 14 July 2020
3-Judge Bench · Nariman, Bhat, Ramasubramanian
Evidence Act, s.65A & 65B
Case at a glance
The essentials before the detail.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
An election dispute that turned on a video recording.
The election
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar is declared elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.
The challenge
Defeated candidates file election petitions, alleging nomination papers were filed after the deadline.
The video evidence
They rely on video recordings from the Returning Officer’s office — an electronic record.
High Court
Bombay HC (Aurangabad bench) admits the CDs without a s.65B certificate and sets aside the election.
Reference to 3 judges
Conflict between Anvar P.V. and Shafhi Mohammad sends the s.65B question to a larger bench.
The question presented
Is the Section 65B(4) certificate a mandatory pre-condition for admitting secondary electronic evidence — or merely optional?
A condition precedent to admissibility. For a copy, printout or CD, no certificate means the electronic record cannot be admitted at all.
★ The Court’s answer
That electronic records could be proved by other means, with the certificate a mere convenience the courts could waive.
Rejected
The Section 65B admissibility test
When is a certificate needed — and when is it not.
Original device?
Is the actual computer/device produced in court?
Or a copy/printout?
A CD, printout or copy is “secondary” output under 65B(1).
Certificate required
For copies, the 65B(4) certificate is mandatory.
Admissible
With certificate (or original device + owner), the record is proved.
What the Supreme Court held
Six propositions that now govern electronic evidence.
Certificate is mandatory
For secondary electronic records (copies/printouts/CDs), the written certificate under s.65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility — not optional.
Original device needs no certificate
Where the original device itself is produced and its owner deposes, s.65B(1) is satisfied directly — no certificate is needed.
The law cannot compel the impossible
If the certificate is held by another party or authority who refuses it, the party may apply to the court to summon it — the requirement is not defeated.
Timing of the certificate
The certificate may be produced at any stage of the trial, in the court’s discretion, before the trial concludes.
s.65A & 65B are a complete code
They are a special, self-contained scheme for electronic records and override the general secondary-evidence sections (s.63, 65).
Conflict resolved
Anvar P.V. states the correct law (clarified); Shafhi Mohammad and Tomaso Bruno do not.
How earlier judgments were treated
The Court tidied up a decade of conflicting authority.
Two maxims at the heart of the judgment
Why an impossible certificate cannot sink an honest case.
Directions issued by the Court
Practical orders to make the rule workable.
Preserve records
Cellular and internet service providers must maintain CDRs and relevant electronic records for the statutory period so they can be produced.
Summon when withheld
Where a party cannot procure the certificate, courts must use their powers to direct production from whoever holds the device/record.
Appeals & reference
The reference is answered; the connected election appeals are decided in line with these principles.
The certificate is mandatory — but never a trap for the honest litigant
Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence. The original device, produced and spoken to by its owner, needs no certificate; and where the certificate is genuinely beyond a party’s reach, the court will compel its production. Anvar P.V. is the law; Shafhi Mohammad and Tomaso Bruno are not.