ANVAR P. VV. P.K.BASHEER7& ORS (2014) 10 SCC473

ANVAR P. VV. P.K.BASHEER7& ORS (2014) 10 SCC473

  •  This case holds immense importance in today‚Äôs technology-driven world as the Supreme Court in this noteworthy case decided on the admissibility of electronic evidence in a court of the law taking into account Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By interpreting the application of provisions 63, 65, and 65B of the Act of 1872, the Apex Court, in this case, overruled its earlier decision made in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), commonly known as the Parliament Attack case. The three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice R M Lodha, and Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman by observing that an electronic record as a shred of secondary evidence shall not be admissible before the Court as evidence unless the requisites laid down by Section 65B are abided by, delivered the following opinions.
  •   Electronic documents shall be perceived as documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  •   Any documentary evidence that is presented before the court in the form of an electronic record under Sections 59 and 65A, can only be proved in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 65B.
  •   The purpose of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is to approve electronic forms as secondary evidence presented before the Indian courts. The Apex Court went further to state that it is to be noted that Section 65B begins with a non-obstante clause.