Certificate Under Section 65B Must Be From Original Device Operator: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Legal Requirement for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) delivered a significant ruling clarifying a vital evidentiary issue concerning the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that a Section 65B certificate must be issued by the person who had control over the original device in which the recording was made, and not merely from the person to whom the file was later transferred.

“The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device”

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, setting aside the Rent Tribunal's order permitting electronic evidence without a proper certificate from the original device operator, emphasized that the requirements under Section 65B are mandatory, and a defective or substituted certificate is not valid in the absence of justification or statutory procedure being followed.

In a recent judgment Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dealt with an important procedural issue relating to electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The case questioned whether a person, who did not originally record an electronic file, can furnish the certificate under Section 65B for its admissibility. The Court ruled that only the person who had actual control of the device at the time of recording can issue such a certificate, and any certificate issued by a subsequent transferee would be invalid unless proper steps are taken.

The dispute originated from a rent control proceeding before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, where respondent no. 2, Rajendra Kumar Johri, sought to produce electronic evidence (video recordings) in the form of a Pen Drive and CD (Exhibits 8 to 44), along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, issued by himself.

The petitioner, Shwetabh Singhal, objected on the grounds that the original recording was done in the device of one Rajat Sancheti, and therefore the certificate ought to have been issued by Sancheti and not Johri, as mandated by law.

Despite this, the Tribunal allowed the electronic evidence, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order before the High Court.

The core legal question was:

“Whether it is mandatory that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act must be issued by the person in whose device the electronic record was originally recorded?”

The petitioner relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, AIR 2015 SC 180, which requires strict compliance with Section 65B(4). The petitioner argued that since the video was recorded in Rajat Sancheti’s device, only his certificate would satisfy the statutory requirement.

The respondent argued that:

• The video was indeed recorded in Sancheti’s device,

• It was later transferred to respondent Johri’s device,

• A Section 65B certificate was issued by Johri and submitted to the Tribunal,

• No such specific objection was raised before the Tribunal initially.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the respondent's argument and observed that:

“The certificate issued by the respondent No.2-Rajendra Kumar Johri is not valid, as the video was not recorded originally in his device. The video was recorded in the device of Rajat Sancheti whose certificate was required to be produced on the record.”

The Court relied heavily on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and reaffirmed it with reference to Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1. Quoting Para 14 of Anvar P.V., the Court reiterated:

“Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act... The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.”

Further citing Paras 51–52 of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Court stressed that:

“Though Section 65B(4) is mandatory, yet, in cases where the certificate cannot be obtained from a third party (e.g. original device holder), the trial judge must summon such person... This is particularly crucial where the party relying on the record has no control over the original device.”

Since the respondent failed to summon or procure the certificate from the original source (Sancheti), the certificate submitted was deemed legally insufficient.

However, rather than rejecting the electronic evidence entirely, the Court allowed liberty to the respondent to submit the valid Section 65B certificate from Rajat Sancheti.

The Rajasthan High Court has decisively reaffirmed the mandatory procedural safeguards for electronic evidence, ensuring integrity and reliability in digital documentation, especially in civil disputes. The judgment re-emphasizes that:

“Compliance with Section 65B is not a mere formality. The certificate must come from the source — the device where the data was first recorded.”

While the writ petition was disposed of, the respondent was granted the opportunity to submit the valid certificate, failing which the evidence may be rendered inadmissible.

Date of Decision: 09 September 2025