SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 685

R. M. LODHA, KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Anvar P. V. – Appellant
Versus
P. K. Basheer – Respondent


JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.-

1. Construction by plaintiff, destruction by defendant. Construction by pleadings, proof by evidence; proof only by relevant and admissible evidence. Genuineness, veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the court only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. These are some of the first principles of evidence. What is the nature and manner of admission of electronic records, is one of the principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal.

2. In the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 13.04.2011, the first respo ndent was declared elected to 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency. He was a candidate supported by United Democratic Front. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate, allegedly supported by the Left Democratic Front. Sixth respondent was the chief election agent of the first respondent. There were five candidates. Appellant was second in terms of votes; others secured only marginal votes. He 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’) and a




















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

**Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473** (and variants like 2014 (10) SCALE 660, AIR 2015 SC 180): Vast majority of references (e.g., Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan VS Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke - 2015 1 Supreme 195, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan VS Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke - Crimes (2015), Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. VS State of Assam - 2015 0 Supreme(Gau) 132, Naveen VS State by Mandi Mohalla Police Station - 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 953, Vikas Verma @ Vicky VS State of Rajasthan - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1471, etc., nearly all entries). Universally cited as controlling authority on electronic evidence admissibility under Section 65B. Phrases like "as held by this Court in Anvar", "law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anvar", "reliance placed upon Anvar", "three-judge Bench decision", "well settled law". No negative treatment; consistently followed positively.

**State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu** (implied from context, e.g., Hosamanera Prakash VS State Of Karnataka - 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 100, Tarun Chaturvedi son of Dilip Kumar VS State of Rajasthan through P. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(Raj) 390, Jishu Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - 2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 509, Jishu Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - Crimes (2016), Vandana Parihar (Vyas), Wife of Shri Kapil Parihar VS State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 449, SONU @ AMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2017 5 Supreme 816): Not directly listed but explicitly overruled by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer. Referenced as "earlier judgment overruled", "overruled by three-judge Bench in Anvar", "Navjot Sandhu (supra) stands overruled", "doubted and overruled". Treated as bad law indirectly through Anvar citations.

None explicitly distinguished with phrases like "distinguished" or "not applicable". All substantive citations are affirmative.

None identified. No phrases like "criticized", "questioned", or negative qualifiers.

d_neutrally>

**Salman Salim Khan VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes (2015)**: "Law of Evidence has no place for general public opinion..." Standalone statement, no case citation or treatment indicator. Neutral, unclear relevance.

**KISHAN TRIPATHI @ KISHAN PAINTER VS STATE - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 780**: "The admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence, particularly CCTV footage..." Descriptive summary, no treatment language. Neutral reference.

**Anik Bansal VS State Of Haryana - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3133**: Summary of legal point on prosecution burden and admissibility. No treatment indicator. Neutral.

**Manish Meena VS State of Rajasthan - 2020 0 Supreme(Raj) 487**: "Prima facie evidence, including... can influence..." Descriptive, no treatment. Neutral.

**All non-Anvar/State(NCT) entries lacking explicit treatment language**: Many snippets (e.g., Sanjay Sharma VS State - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 3605, Sivakumar VS State by The Inspector of Police - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 2585, Salman Salim Khan VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes (2015), KISHAN TRIPATHI @ KISHAN PAINTER VS STATE - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 780) are fragmentary citations or summaries without clear treatment signals (e.g., no "followed", "overruled"). Categorized conservatively as followed_approved if tied to Anvar context, or neutral if standalone. Reasoning: List focuses overwhelmingly on Anvar as good law; ambiguity arises from snippet format, but no negative indicators.

**State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu**: Not in primary list but central as the case overruled by Anvar (explicit in multiple entries like Tarun Chaturvedi son of Dilip Kumar VS State of Rajasthan through P. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(Raj) 390: "overruling", Jishu Sengupta VS State of West Bengal - 2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 509: "overruled its earlier decision"). Uncertain as "bad law" proxy since absent from IDs; prioritized in followed_approved for context.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top