Electronic evidence wins and loses cases every day, and the difference is almost always procedural rather than substantive.
The rule
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024, an electronic record is admissible, but where it is produced other than by the original device, it must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 63, which carries forward Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The certificate identifies the electronic record, describes the manner of production, gives particulars of the device, and is signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the device.
The leading authority
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) a three-judge bench held that the certificate is a mandatory pre-condition to admissibility of secondary electronic evidence, resolving earlier conflicting decisions. The Court also held that where a party is unable to obtain the certificate because the device is in the possession of someone else, they may apply to the court for a direction to produce it. So the requirement is strict, but it is not a trap without an exit.
The single commonest failure is a party who forwarded a chat to themselves several times, changed phones, and no longer has the original handset. Do not delete the chat, do not reset the device, and do not rely on a photograph of a screen. Where the matter is serious, take advice about having the device imaged forensically before anything changes.
What strengthens electronic evidence
- The complete thread with dates and times, not selected messages. Edited extracts invite the argument that context was removed
- Export the chat through the application's own export function, which preserves metadata
- Corroboration: bank entries, delivery records, call detail records obtained through the court
- Where authenticity is genuinely disputed, an examiner of electronic evidence report
Two limits worth knowing
First, admissibility is not the same as weight. A court may admit a message and still give it little value if authorship is doubtful. Second, courts have observed that a message being delivered or displaying blue ticks does not by itself prove that a particular person read and understood it, so do not overstate what a screenshot establishes.