Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Use of social media videos in cross-examination without a Section 65B certificate is generally not permissible, especially when the electronic record is being confronted with a witness during cross-examination. Courts have emphasized that such videos cannot be introduced without complying with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which requires a certificate from an expert confirming the authenticity and integrity of the electronic record ["Balbir Singh vs Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal Panjwan Takhat - Punjab and Haryana"].
A certificate under Section 65B is often deemed necessary when electronic records like videos or social media content are produced as evidence. The courts have consistently held that without such a certificate, electronic evidence cannot be admitted or used in cross-examination, unless the original device and media are produced, in which case the certificate may not be required ["Umer Ali S/o Abdul Hussain Vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["SANTHOSH SHET S/O SRINIVAS SHET P. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], ["Chattrapal Singh Lodha vs State of NCT - Delhi"].
Several judgments reinforce that the primary requirement for admissibility of electronic evidence, including social media videos, is the presence of a valid Section 65B certificate, which attests to the authenticity of the record. Without it, the evidence is considered inadmissible, and attempting to use such videos in cross-examination may be invalid ["Umer Ali S/o Abdul Hussain Vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["SANTHOSH SHET S/O SRINIVAS SHET P. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], ["Chattrapal Singh Lodha vs State of NCT - Delhi"].
Exceptions exist when original electronic devices and media are produced in court, as in those cases, the certificate under Section 65B may not be necessary. However, in most cases involving copies or secondary electronic records, the absence of a Section 65B certificate renders the evidence inadmissible for cross-examination purposes ["Chattrapal Singh Lodha vs State of NCT - Delhi"], ["CHATTRAPAL SINGH LODHA & ORS. Vs STATE OF NCT - Delhi"].
Courts have also clarified that the purpose of Section 65B is to ensure the integrity and authenticity of electronic records, and the certificate is a procedural safeguard. Without it, the court cannot rely on social media videos or any electronic evidence in cross-examination or otherwise ["Md. Abbas vs State of West Bengal - Calcutta"].
Analysis and Conclusion:A social media video cannot be used in cross-examination without a valid Section 65B certificate unless the original device and media are produced in court. The consistent legal position across multiple judgments is that such videos require certification to establish their authenticity, and without it, their use in cross-examination is generally impermissible ["Balbir Singh vs Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal Panjwan Takhat - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Umer Ali S/o Abdul Hussain Vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["SANTHOSH SHET S/O SRINIVAS SHET P. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
In today's digital age, social media videos have become a treasure trove of potential evidence in legal disputes, from family matters to criminal cases. Imagine confronting a witness with a viral clip that contradicts their testimony—could this sway the court? But there's a catch: can a social media video be used in cross-examination without a 65B certificate? This question often arises in Indian courts, where electronic evidence rules are strict. This post breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from key statutes, Supreme Court rulings, and case insights to guide you.
Note: This is general information based on established precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Social media videos qualify as electronic records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 65B lays down the mandatory procedure for their admissibility, requiring a certificate under Section 65B(4). This certificate must come from someone in control of the device or system that produced the record, affirming its authenticity and integrity. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai VS V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 831
Without it, courts typically deem such evidence inadmissible as substantive proof. The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) solidified this by overruling earlier leniency from State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), declaring Section 65B a self-contained and mandatory provision. Electronic records are only admissible with the certificate—no shortcuts. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai VS V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 831
Key requirements of the certificate include:- Identification of the device/computer used.- Description of how the record was produced.- Assurance against tampering.- Signature of a responsible official. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai VS V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 831
During cross-examination, lawyers often seek to impeach witnesses by highlighting inconsistencies. But can uncertified social media videos be marked or played in court?
Generally, no—for formal admission as evidence. Courts have consistently rejected uncertified videos. In one case, an application to produce a pen-drive with audio-video clips for cross-examination was denied due to the absence of an appropriate Section 65B certificate. The court noted: the document/video in absence of appropriate certificate as contemplated under section 65B of the Evidence Act, is not permitted to be produced for cross. Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091
Here, the Family Court rejected the video in a divorce proceeding for lack of prior pleading and certification, emphasizing that electronic evidence must meet admissibility criteria upfront. A party cannot introduce such documents directly during cross-examination without laying the foundation. Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091
However, there's nuance:- As a probing tool: Videos may be used informally to question witnesses, test credibility, or refresh memory without formal admission. For instance, you might ask, Isn't it true that in this video posted on platform, you said X? This doesn't require certification but carries limited weight. Sakib Ahmed VS State NCT of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4512- Relevance check: Under Section 7, videos must relate to case facts, but relevance alone isn't enough. Opposing counsel can object successfully without the certificate. Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091
The Anvar ruling remains the cornerstone: Electronic records are admissible only if the prescribed certificate is produced. This applies squarely to social media content, often sourced from platforms like YouTube or Instagram. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai VS V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 831
In another instance, courts clarified that Section 65B addresses admissibility of secondary evidence, not the truth of contents. A certificate creates a rebuttable presumption, but without it, even relevant videos falter. The court quashed an order blocking evidence only after certification was addressed: Section 65B nowhere states that the contents of the computer output shall be treated as the truth of the statement – Section 65B deals with the admissibility. Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 328
Social media videos frequently surface in sensitive contexts like blackmail, harassment, or sexual assault cases, where authenticity is paramount to prevent tampering. Courts stress proper procedures: Courts have emphasized the importance of proper procedures for electronic evidence to prevent misuse or tampering, especially in cases involving blackmail or illicit content. Sakib Ahmed VS State NCT of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4512
Additional hurdles from cases:- Prior pleading required: Documents for cross-examination need mention in pleadings; surprise introductions are barred. Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091- Chain of custody: Proving origin and unaltered state is vital, often via the certificate holder testifying. Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091- Video conferencing cross-exam: While permissible under rules like Kerala's Electronic Video Linkage Rules, the evidence itself still needs certification. ALEX C. JOSEPH S/O C. A. JOSEPH VS STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1621
In viral video disputes, like public altercations or speeches, courts scrutinize context but uphold 65B rigor. One case dismissed anticipatory bail challenges partly because a viral video lacked procedural safeguards. Tanuja Rajan @ Tanuja Kanthula VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police G-7, Chetpet Police Station, Chennai - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1184
To leverage social media videos effectively:1. Obtain the certificate early: From the device owner or platform custodian if possible.2. File with pleadings: Disclose in affidavits or applications.3. Authenticate via witness: Call the downloader or poster to verify.4. Anticipate objections: Prepare for challenges on tampering or relevance.
Failure risks exclusion, as seen where a pen-drive was rejected despite an accompanying certificate from an unauthorized person. Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091
Mobile records, CDs, and social clips appear in murder trials too, but cross-examination depositions highlight certification gaps. For example, witnesses clarified SIM details or server access, underscoring forensic proof needs. KUNDAN SINGH VS STATE - 2015 Supreme(Del) 3285Kundan Singh vs State
In influencer disputes, pen-drives with social media videos were marked only with 65B affidavits. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private vs Akshay A. - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18770
Social media videos pack evidentiary punch but demand compliance with Section 65B for use as substantive evidence in cross-examination. Without certification, they risk rejection, though they can aid informal questioning. Key precedents like AnvarState Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai VS V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 831 and cases like the Family Court rejection Pravin VS Pooja - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1091 reinforce this.
Takeaways:- Mandatory certification for admission.- Limited informal use possible.- Plan ahead with proper foundation.- Seek expert help to navigate.
Stay compliant to turn digital clips into courtroom wins. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal professional.
Section 145 deals with cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. “145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. ... The Telangana High Court took a view that a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act could be filed at any stage. There is again no dispute with the said ratio of law but it would not be so in a case where a witness is to be confronted with electronic records during cross-examination. ... It was s....
(1), together with the requisite certificate under S.65B(4). ... She also identified MO1 as the weapon used by him and MO4 series as the DVR and charger examined by her. In her cross examination, she stated that Ext.P24 does not contain the hash value and that Folder No.1 of Ext.P25 contains the original visuals as retrieved from Q1. ... is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in S.65B of the Evidence Act.” ... During cross #H....
The application for production of document, which is a pen-drive containing audio and video clips, for the purpose of cross examination is accompanied by certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act of one Shailesh Balaji Ayanile. ... For the above reasons stated, the document/video in absence of appropriate certificate as contemplated under section 65B of the Evidence Act, is not permitted to be produced for cross #HL_START....
Under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. marking of document, examination, re-examination, cross-examination and further cross-examination can take place. ... The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in all such cases, where the CD/DVD are being forwarded without a certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act, such CD/DVD are not admissible in evidence. ... This Court in Anwar's case (supra) has opined that a certificate under Sec....
... The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. ... ... Direction of re-examination.- The reexamination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, ntroduced in re-examination, the ad....
In his cross-examination, Nirbhay Prashant (PW3) clarified that the telephone number being used by Vipin Kumar was a prepaid SIM card issued by the operator Reliance. ... On cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, PW11 deposed that a CD could not have been prepared without a password for accessing the server on which photographs/data are stored. ... In his cross-examination, PW11 has deposed that their Information Technology Department lo....
In his cross-examination, Nirbhay Prashant (PW3) clarified that the telephone number being used by Vipin Kumar was a prepaid SIM card issued by the operator Reliance. ... On cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, PW11 deposed that a CD could not have been prepared without a password for accessing the server on which photographs/data are stored. ... In his cross- examination, PW11 has deposed that their Information Technology Department l....
in common) 12 Ex.P12 Pen drive containing the impugned video of the defendant uploaded in various social media platforms (not viewed)(affidavit under Sec.65B filed in common) The defendant is a self-proclaimed social media influencer and he has accounts on several social media platforms including YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. He has approximately 3,35,000 subscribers for his YoutTube account. ... or electronic medi....
He voluntarily affirmed in the cross-examination as under:- “……….Vol. ... On cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, PW11 deposed that a CD could not have been prepared without a password for accessing the server on which photographs/data are stored. ... In his cross-examination, Nirbhay Prashant (PW3) clarified that the telephone number being used by Vipin Kumar was a prepaid SIM card issued by the operator Reliance. ... ” ....
He voluntarily affirmed in the cross-examination as under:- “……….Vol. ... On cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, PW11 deposed that a CD could not have been prepared without a password for accessing the server on which photographs/data are stored. ... In his cross-examination, Nirbhay Prashant (PW3) clarified that the telephone number being used by Vipin Kumar was a prepaid SIM card issued by the operator Reliance. ... ” ....
The court affirmed that cross-examination via video conferencing is permissible under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, enhancing access to justice. 1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 1 of 2016 pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram. During trial, a petition was filed seeking permission for the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses through video conferencing. Permission was sought citing health reasons and the counsel’s inability to travel up to Thiruvananthapuram. The learne....
5 is YouTube LLC, an online video sharing and social media platform.
A meeting was organized at Arumanai, a village in western Kanyakumari District, on 18th July, 2021 protesting the continued closure of churches in the District owing to pandemic-induced lockdown. In the said video, the petitioner is seen and heard claiming that the network of Catholic priests was tapped by him and his associates to canvass votes in favour of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam which won the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. He mocked the Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in the following words : The entire speech....
It is further to be pointed out that the whole occurrence happened in broad daylight in open public place. Thereafter, the video shot of the occurrence had gone viral in social media. If really the stand of the 1st petitioner that the police officials had misbehaved with the 2nd petitioner is true, the 2nd petitioner could have raised alarm, which would have attracted the attention of the public. However, no such stand has been taken by the petitioners either before the court below or before this Court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
