In the case of Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September 2014, the Supreme Court of India was called upon to deliberate on the principles of evidence, particularly the nature and manner of admission of electronic records. This case was an appeal against the decision of the Kerala Legislative Assembly elections held on 13.04.2011, where the first respondent was declared elected to the 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate and sought to set aside the election under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(2)(ii) and (4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RP Act’).
Facts of the Case
In the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 13.04.2011, the first respondent was declared elected to the 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency. The appellant, who contested the election as an independent candidate, sought to set aside the election under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(2)(ii) and (4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant was second in terms of votes, while others secured only marginal votes.
Issues Raised
The primary issue raised in this case was the nature and manner of admission of electronic records. The appellant had produced CDs as evidence of corrupt practices, but these were not accompanied by a certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the court had to decide whether these CDs could be admitted as evidence.
Other issues raised included whether certain publications and announcements were made as part of the election campaign of the first respondent and whether these amounted to commission of corrupt practice under section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act.
Court’s Observations
The court observed that any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. The court clarified that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied.
The court also noted that the appellant had not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs. Therefore, these could not be admitted in evidence, and the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using songs, announcements, and speeches fell to the ground.
The court further clarified that if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in this case, provided a clear interpretation of the law regarding the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. It clarified that the requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act must be satisfied for an electronic record to be admitted as secondary evidence. However, if an electronic record is used as primary evidence, it is admissible without the need to comply with the conditions in Section 65B. This case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving the admissibility of electronic records as evidence.