Court Overturns Trial Court's Order, Allows Self-Certification for Digital Records
In a landmark decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a trial court's order, establishing that a self-certificate provided by an individual in lawful control of an electronic device is sufficient for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The judgment was passed by Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1239 of 2024, dated April 29, 2026.
The case, Sri Mangena Sri Venkataramana v. Smt Mangena Sri Anusha Devi, revolved around the petitioner's attempt to submit various electronic records as evidence, including WhatsApp status, email prints, and digital photographs, supported by his self-certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The trial court previously denied the admissibility of these records, insisting that the certificate must be issued by a "proper authority."
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Anita Ahuja, argued that the trial court ignored the overriding provisions of the Family Courts Act, which permit the acceptance of documents typically inadmissible under the strict rules of the Evidence Act. However, the High Court clarified that these provisions did not apply as the trial court was not a Family Court.
Justice Cheemalapati referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal, which confirmed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence and can be issued by the person in "lawful control" of the device. He emphasized that a self-certificate must fulfill specific statutory requirements, including identifying the electronic record, describing its production, and confirming the device's proper functioning.
The High Court remanded the case to the trial court to verify the compliance of the self-certificate with the statutory requirements. If found satisfactory, the petitioner will be permitted to mark the electronic records as evidence.
This judgment sets a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle that individuals in lawful control of electronic devices can authenticate electronic records for evidentiary purposes, provided they meet statutory criteria. Legal experts anticipate that this decision will streamline the process of admitting electronic evidence in courts across India.
Bottom line:-
A self-certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), issued by the person in lawful control of the electronic device, is admissible if it fulfills statutory requirements, including identifying the electronic record, describing its production, and affirming the proper functioning of the device.
Statutory provision(s): Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
