Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: The Case That Settled Electronic Evidence in India, and Its Place under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

For nine years after the Supreme Court decided Navjot Sandhu, an electronic record could be proved in India by anybody who could produce a printout and a witness to say where it came from. Anvar P.V. ended that. It held that the electronic-evidence provisions were a complete code, that the certificate was a condition precedent to admissibility, and that the general provisions on secondary evidence had no application at all. Everything decided since — including the Adhiniyam itself — is built on that holding.

1. The Facts

The appellant and the respondent contested an election to the Legislative Assembly from a constituency in Kerala. The respondent was declared elected, and the appellant filed an election petition seeking to have the election declared void.

The ground alleged was that the respondent and his supporters had circulated defamatory material about the appellant during the campaign — songs, announcements and speeches made at meetings and through public address systems, said to constitute corrupt practice.

To prove this, the appellant produced compact discs said to contain recordings of the announcements and songs. The recordings had not been made directly onto the discs; the material had been recorded and then copied, so that what was tendered was not the device on which the original recording was made.

The High Court dismissed the election petition. The appeal to the Supreme Court raised, as its central question, whether the discs were admissible at all.

2. The Question

The Indian Evidence Act as it then stood contained two schemes that appeared to cover the same ground.

The general scheme. Sections 61 to 65 dealt with proof of the contents of documents. Section 63 defined secondary evidence; Section 65 set out the cases in which secondary evidence might be given. Since an electronic record was a document, these provisions were on their face available.

The special scheme. Sections 65A and 65B, inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000, dealt specifically with electronic records. Section 65A said their contents might be proved in accordance with Section 65B; Section 65B set out four conditions and required a certificate under sub-section (4).

The question was whether a party could bypass the special scheme by treating a printout or a copied disc as ordinary secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65, and so avoid the certificate.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Parliament attack case, had held that he could. In that decision the Court had received call records without a certificate, observing that secondary evidence of the contents of a document could be led under Sections 63 and 65 irrespective of compliance with Section 65B.

3. The Decision

📖 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473

Held: Electronic records constitute a special class of evidence. Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act together form a complete code on the subject of the admissibility of electronic records, and they are a special law in relation to the general provisions on documentary evidence.

Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant — the general does not detract from the special — the Court held that a party cannot fall back on Sections 63 and 65 to prove the contents of an electronic record. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record can, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 65B.

Compliance with Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admission of secondary electronic evidence. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted unless the requirements of Section 65B are satisfied, and the certificate must accompany the record.

Where, however, the electronic record is used as primary evidence under Section 62 — the original device itself being produced — the record is admissible without compliance with the conditions in Section 65B.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 was overruled to the extent that it had held the contrary.

Ratio: The certificate is a condition precedent to the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence, and the special provisions exclude the general ones.

On the facts, the compact discs were copies rather than the original recordings, and no certificate had been furnished. They were therefore inadmissible, and the appeal failed on that ground.

4. The Reasoning

Three strands support the conclusion, and each is worth stating separately because they are cited independently.

4.1 The maxim

Generalia specialibus non derogant — general provisions do not derogate from special ones. Where a statute contains a general provision covering a subject and a special provision dealing specifically with part of it, the special provision governs that part, and the general provision is read as applying to the remainder.

Sections 63 and 65 dealt with secondary evidence of documents generally. Sections 65A and 65B dealt with electronic records specifically. The special provisions therefore governed electronic records, and the general ones did not.

4.2 The complete code

The Court held that Sections 65A and 65B are a complete code on the admissibility of electronic records. The expression matters: a complete code leaves no room for supplementation from outside it. If the conditions in Section 65B are not satisfied, the record is not admissible, and there is no alternative route.

4.3 The nature of electronic records

Underlying both is a view about the material itself. An electronic record is uniquely vulnerable to alteration, and the alteration leaves no trace. The certificate exists to supply an assurance that a paper original supplies by its physical existence, and a scheme that allowed it to be dispensed with would leave nothing in its place.

⚠ The decision was about admissibility, not about weight

It is sometimes read as saying that electronic evidence is inherently unreliable. It says nothing of the kind. It says that the legislature prescribed a particular route for proving such records and that the route must be followed. A record proved in accordance with Section 65B is admissible without any reservation, and its weight is assessed on the ordinary principles.

5. The Primary Evidence Exception

The most important qualification in the judgment, and the one most often overlooked when it was first decided, is that the certificate is required for secondary evidence only.

Where the electronic record is used as primary evidence under Section 62 — the original device being produced before the court for inspection — the record is admissible without compliance with Section 65B. The reason follows from the purpose of the certificate: it exists to assure the court that a copy corresponds to what is in the device, and where the device itself is before the court there is nothing to assure.

This qualification became the foundation of the position later clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, and it is the ancestor of the Explanations now added to Section 57 of the Adhiniyam, which go considerably further by deeming several classes of electronic output to be primary evidence.

6. What Happened Next

The decision did not settle matters immediately. Two subsequent decisions departed from it before a larger bench restored it.

Decision	What it did	Fate
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178	Observed that secondary evidence of electronic records could be led under the general provisions, reverting to the pre-Anvar position	Declared per incuriam in Arjun Panditrao, for having taken a view contrary to Anvar P.V. without noticing it
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801	Relaxed the requirement where the party relying on the record was not in possession of the device, on the footing that the law should not require an impossibility	Held not to be good law in Arjun Panditrao; the difficulty it addressed was met instead by the power to compel production
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, (2020) 7 SCC 1	A three-Judge Bench restored and clarified Anvar P.V.; certificate mandatory for secondary evidence; not required where the original device is produced; court may compel production where the device is with another	The governing decision

The sequence is worth knowing because Tomaso Bruno and Shafhi Mohammad are still occasionally cited, and both have been dealt with. Tomaso Bruno retains some currency for an observation about the adverse inference from failing to produce available footage, but even that is better founded on Illustration (g) to Section 119 of the Adhiniyam directly.

7. Anvar P.V. and the Adhiniyam

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 adopted the holding rather than departing from it, and the correspondence is direct.

Holding in Anvar P.V.	Where it sits in the Adhiniyam
Sections 65A and 65B are a complete code	Sections 62 and 63, which reproduce the scheme; the complete-code reasoning applies unchanged
The certificate is mandatory for secondary evidence	Section 63(4), now requiring two signatures and a prescribed form in the Schedule
The general secondary-evidence provisions do not apply	Section 62 directs the contents of electronic records to Section 63, and the direction is exclusive
No certificate where the record is primary evidence	Explanations 3 to 6 to Section 57, which go further by deeming several classes of output to be primary evidence
Overruling of Navjot Sandhu	Not reflected; the permissive position is gone

Two developments since are worth noting alongside. The Adhiniyam's Explanations to Section 57 remove a very large body of material from the certificate requirement altogether — a printout from one's own device, a forensic recovery from a cache, a synchronised cloud copy, a simultaneously recorded video. And Pune Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297 has upheld the new certificate regime while holding that the expert who signs Part B need not be an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

8. Why the Decision Still Matters

The provisions it construed have been replaced, and the case might be thought to be of historical interest only. It is not, for three reasons.

The complete-code reasoning is the reason Section 63 cannot be bypassed. Nothing in the Adhiniyam says that the general secondary-evidence provisions in Sections 58 and 60 are excluded for electronic records. That conclusion comes from the reasoning in Anvar P.V., applied to Sections 62 and 63, and a party arguing that his printout is simply a mechanical copy under Section 58(ii) is making the argument Anvar P.V. rejected.

The primary-evidence distinction it drew is the foundation of the present scheme. The Explanations to Section 57 are an elaboration of the qualification Anvar P.V. stated in a sentence.

It set the standard of seriousness. Before 2014 electronic evidence was routinely received on the say-so of whoever produced it. The insistence that a statutory condition means what it says changed the practice, and the discipline it imposed — preserve, hash, certify — is what the Adhiniyam now codifies.

9. The Position Stated Shortly

The facts — an election petition in which defamatory announcements were sought to be proved by copied compact discs without a certificate.
The question — whether the general secondary-evidence provisions could be used to bypass the special provisions on electronic records.
The holding — they could not. Sections 65A and 65B are a complete code, and the certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of secondary electronic evidence.
The maxim — generalia specialibus non derogant.
The exception — no certificate is required where the original device is produced as primary evidence.
The overruling — Navjot Sandhu, to the extent it held the contrary.
The aftermath — Tomaso Bruno per incuriam, Shafhi Mohammad not good law, Arjun Panditrao restoring and clarifying.
Under the Adhiniyam — the holding is reflected in Sections 62 and 63, and the primary-evidence exception is elaborated in Explanations 3 to 6 to Section 57.

10. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal	The decision that restored and clarified this one
Electronic and Digital Evidence — Sections 61 to 63	The provisions that replaced Sections 65A and 65B
Section 63 Certificate — Complete Note	The certificate as it now stands
Electronic or Digital Record as Primary Evidence	The Explanations elaborating the exception this case stated
Electronic Evidence — BSA vs Indian Evidence Act	What changed and what was carried forward
Kinds of Secondary Evidence	The general provisions this decision held inapplicable to electronic records
Section 62, BSA	The direction that contents of electronic records be proved under Section 63