Home › Legal Articles › Digital evidence

Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer: Electronic Evidence in India

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 3 Nov 2026 · Digital evidence

Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer is the 2014 judgment in which the Supreme Court held that an electronic record produced as secondary evidence is admissible only if the conditions in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied and the certificate under section 65B(4) accompanies it.

Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer, decided by the Supreme Court in 2014, is the reason a printout, a copied recording or a screenshot cannot simply be handed to a court and treated as proof. The Court held that an electronic record produced as secondary evidence is admissible only if it satisfies the conditions in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is accompanied by the certificate required by section 65B(4). Without that certificate the record is inadmissible, however genuine it may be. For a cyber crime case, where the whole case usually rests on chats, call records, emails, screenshots or a pen drive, that is not a technicality; it is the case.

The scheme has since been re-enacted. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the substance of the old section 65B now sits in section 63 of the new Act, with the certificate requirement in section 63(4). The reasoning of Anvar P.V. survives the change; what a complainant or an investigator must actually produce has shifted.

The facts and the question before the Court

The case arose out of an election petition. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent and relied on compact discs said to contain objectionable songs, speeches and announcements as proof of corrupt electoral practice. The discs were copies; they had been recorded using other instruments and then fed into a computer. No certificate under section 65B had been furnished when the discs were produced. The High Court had rejected the petition, and the appeal reached the Supreme Court, where the central question was simply how an electronic record is to be proved.

The Court's answer was uncompromising. The discs, being copies rather than the original recordings, could not be admitted at all. The appeal failed on that ground. The judgment mattered far beyond the election dispute, because it set the standard for every electronic record produced in Indian courts thereafter, in civil cases and criminal cases alike.

Why sections 65A and 65B were treated as a complete code

Before the judgment, there was a permissive view that a person could prove the contents of an electronic record using the ordinary rules on secondary evidence, calling a witness to say where the material came from. The Court rejected that approach. Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, it held, together form a complete code on the admissibility of electronic records, and they are a special law in relation to the general provisions on documentary evidence. Applying the principle that a general provision does not detract from a special one, it concluded that a party cannot fall back on the general secondary-evidence provisions to prove the contents of an electronic record. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record, the Court said, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure in section 65B. To that extent the Court overruled an earlier decision which had permitted a more relaxed approach.

The logic is easy to state. Electronic records are more susceptible to tampering, alteration and transposition than paper. The certificate exists to give the court an assurance about the source and the authenticity of the record, which are the two things that matter most. Without that assurance, a trial built on electronic records risks becoming, in the Court's words, a travesty of justice.

The conditions and the certificate

Section 65B permits the contents of an electronic record to be proved by a computer output, without producing the original, when the conditions in the section are satisfied. In substance those conditions require that:

The computer output was produced by the computer during the period in which it was regularly used for the activity concerned.
The information was supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of that activity.
The computer was operating properly, or any malfunction did not affect the accuracy of the output.
The information reproduced is derived from the information supplied in the ordinary course.

Alongside those conditions, the certificate under sub-section (4) must be given by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device, identifying the record and describing the manner in which it was produced, with particulars of the device involved. The certificate is the gate. If it is absent, the record does not come in, no matter how convincing its content appears to the person who made the printout.

When the record is primary evidence

The judgment contained an important qualification that is often overlooked. Where the electronic record is used as primary evidence - where the original device itself is produced before the court - the record is admissible without compliance with section 65B. The Court observed that the position would have been different had the original recordings been seized properly and produced in court, so that the court could play them itself. That is why seizure procedure matters so much in a cyber crime investigation: a device lawfully seized and produced is primary evidence, while a copy made afterwards may fail for want of a certificate.

From section 65B to section 63 of the BSA 2023

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 moved the scheme across without altering its force. The table shows the correspondence.

Position under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Position under the BSA, 2023
Section 65A - special provisions for electronic records prevail	Section 63 read with section 62
Section 65B - admissibility of computer output on four conditions	Section 63 - admissibility of electronic records
Section 65B(4) - certificate from a responsible official	Section 63(4) - certificate in the prescribed form, in the Schedule
Section 62 - primary evidence	Section 62 - originals, including electronic records

Two practical changes deserve attention. The certificate under section 63(4) of the BSA is required to be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Act, and must be signed as that form prescribes. For records governed by the old Act, the section 65B certificate continues to be the relevant requirement, so in any case that straddles the change in law, the drafter must identify which regime applies before choosing the form of certification. Getting this right at the outset avoids the discovery, months later, that the record the case depends on is unproved.

It is worth noting what the certificate is not. It is not a substitute for proving the content of the record; it only opens the door to admissibility. Nor does it cure a record that has been altered after the fact. The certificate speaks to source and authenticity, and a court remains free to weigh the record, once admitted, against the rest of the evidence. A certified record that contradicts the other material in the case is still a weak record.

What this means in a cyber crime case

Cyber crime prosecutions and defences turn on electronic records: WhatsApp and email messages, call detail records, bank statements produced electronically, cloud logs, CCTV footage, and screenshots of a website or a social-media post. Each of these must be proved in the manner the law now requires.

A screenshot printed by the complainant is a copy. It is secondary evidence and needs certification, or it needs to be replaced with the platform's own certified record.
Call detail records and bank statements supplied by a service provider should be accompanied by the certificate from the responsible official of that provider.
CCTV footage and pen drives should be seized with proper documentation under the search and seizure provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, so that the original can be produced as primary evidence where possible.
A device that is producing a record should be preserved rather than wiped, because the original may later be the strongest evidence available.

The practical consequence is that an investigator's or a complainant's handling of a device in the first days often decides the case months later. The certificate can be supplemented or cured in many cases, but a device that has been reimaged or a log that has been overwritten cannot be.

Where the law is still developing

The framework has been clarified further after Anvar P.V. In a subsequent decision the Supreme Court explained that the certificate requirement applies where the electronic record is produced as secondary evidence, and that it is unnecessary where the original device itself is produced and proved by its owner. That clarification softened the practical burden while leaving the core rule intact. What remains genuinely unsettled is how the older and newer certification regimes interact for proceedings that began before 1 July 2024 and continue after it, and whether particular categories of output - for example, computer-generated documents - are primary or secondary. These are questions a court decides on the facts, and they should be argued on the current text of the BSA rather than on a general recollection of the Evidence Act.

A short evidence-preservation checklist

Anvar P.V. rewards those who plan ahead. From the moment a cyber crime is suspected, the following steps protect a case.

Identify every electronic record likely to matter - messages, emails, call records, transaction logs, CCTV - and note where each is held.
Ask the service provider or platform to preserve the record before it expires, and obtain it through a legally proper request rather than an informal email.
Avoid wiping, resetting or repairing any device until it has been forensically imaged and documented.
Record the chain of custody, with names, dates and signatures, for every device, pen drive or media produced.
Obtain the certificate, in the correct form, from a person who genuinely occupies a responsible official position in relation to the device.

Common mistakes in proving electronic evidence

Relying on a screenshot without a certificate, then discovering at trial that the record cannot be admitted.
Failing to seize the device or the storage media, when producing the original would have avoided the certification problem altogether.
Wiping, resetting or reimaging an electronic device before forensic preservation, destroying the very evidence the case needs.
Obtaining a certificate from someone who does not occupy a responsible official position in relation to the relevant device or system.
Assuming that a bank or platform will produce records voluntarily at the trial stage, instead of obtaining them through the proper legal process during investigation.

When to involve a lawyer

The point of Anvar P.V. is that electronic evidence has to be collected and certified correctly, and that is a job best done at the beginning. A lawyer's role is to make sure the correct records are identified, seized or obtained through the proper process, certified in the right form under the applicable Act, and proved by the right witness. Where a case has already reached the stage of trial on uncertified records, the remedy is to apply for the documents and the certificates in time rather than to hope the objection will be overlooked. Our cyber crime lawyers handle both the preservation and the proof of digital evidence, and general defence work is set out under criminal defence.

An electronic record is only as strong as the certificate that accompanies it. Preserve the original device, and the certificate may not be needed at all.

Need help with a cyber crime matter?

Tell me what happened and I will tell you what to file, where, and by when. First conversation is free.

Call +91-9007000603 WhatsApp

Frequently asked questions

What did Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer decide?

The Supreme Court held in 2014 that an electronic record produced as secondary evidence is admissible only if the conditions in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied and the certificate under section 65B(4) accompanies it. The compact discs in that case, being copies without a certificate, were held inadmissible.

Is a certificate required for all electronic evidence in India?

No. The certificate is required where an electronic record is produced as secondary evidence, such as a printout or a copy. Where the original device itself is produced in court and proved by its owner or operator, the record is treated as primary evidence and the certificate requirement does not apply. The distinction is central to how digital evidence is handled.

What does section 63 of the BSA 2023 require for electronic records?

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 carries forward the scheme of the old section 65B. It permits an electronic record to be proved by a computer output if the statutory conditions are met, and section 63(4) requires a certificate in the prescribed form set out in the Schedule, signed as that form directs.

How do I prove a WhatsApp chat or a screenshot in an Indian court?

A screenshot printed by a party is a copy and counts as secondary evidence, so it needs the certificate required by the applicable Act. A stronger route is to obtain the platform's own record through the proper legal process during investigation, or to seize and produce the original device so that the chat is proved as primary evidence.

Why is call detail record evidence often rejected in cyber crime trials?

Usually because it is produced as a copy without the certificate from the responsible official of the service provider. Under the rule in Anvar P.V., an electronic record produced as secondary evidence is inadmissible without that certificate. Obtaining a properly signed certificate from the provider's authorised officer at the time the record is supplied avoids the objection.

Does the Anvar P.V. rule still apply after the BSA 2023 came into force?

Yes, in substance. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from 1 July 2024 and re-enacted the scheme in section 63, with the certificate in section 63(4). The reasoning of Anvar P.V. survives, though the form of certification and the correct provision to cite depend on which Act governs the proceeding.

What is the consequence of attaching an uncertified electronic record?

It is inadmissible as secondary evidence, so the fact it was meant to prove is left unproved. In a cyber crime case resting on chats, call records or screenshots, that can end the prosecution or the defence. The defect can sometimes be cured by obtaining the certificate in time, but a wiped device or an overwritten log cannot be cured at all.

Should the original device be seized in a cyber crime investigation?

Wherever possible, yes. If the original device or storage media is seized, documented and produced in court, the record can be proved as primary evidence and the certificate requirement does not apply. Seizure in a cyber crime case is carried out under the search and seizure provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the documentation must be complete to withstand challenge.

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact