Telangana High Court Rules Personal Electronic Evidence Only Requires Owner Certificate Under Section 65B

In a significant ruling regarding the admissibility of digital records in civil proceedings, the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad has clarified the operational scope of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Smt. Justice Renuka Yara held that individuals seeking to rely on WhatsApp chats and emails stored on their personal devices are not obligated to obtain certification from external official authorities.

Dispute over Digital Records

The case originated from a civil suit concerning a partnership investment dispute. During the evidence phase, the defendant attempted to introduce email and WhatsApp exchanges between the involved parties as evidence. The trial court had previously rejected this submission, ruling that the electronic data required a certificate under Section 65B(4) issued by a "responsible official position," such as an IT administrator or service provider.

Arguments on Certification

The petitioner argued that as the sole owner and manager of the personal mobile device used to generate the chats and emails, he was legally competent to verify the records. Conversely, the respondent contended that the lack of an official certificate rendered the digital records inadmissible and that the petitioner’s attempt to introduce them caused unnecessary delay.

Resolving the Legal Hurdle

The High Court drew upon the precedent established in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal , highlighting that the certification requirements under Section 65B reflect procedural necessity rather than an insurmountable barrier. Justice Renuka Yara emphasized that when an individual exercises lawful control over a private device, they act as the "manager of relevant activities" for the purpose of the statute.

"The petitioner is the manager and owner of the device through which email and WhatsApp conversations are recorded," noted the court. The ruling clarifies that the legislative intent behind Section 65B is to ensure the authenticity of data, which can be accomplished by the device's user for personal records.

Key Observations

  • "The requirement of certificate from an official person is necessary when the electronic evidence is of the public property and not when said electronic evidence is private property."
  • " Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act clearly gives alternative course of action for receiving the documents."
  • "The petitioner has followed the second option available i.e. filing his own certificate, to the best of his knowledge, about said WhatsApp chats and emails originating from the blackberry owned by him."

Impact of the Decision

By setting aside the lower court’s order, the High Court has streamlined the process for litigants to submit digital evidence. This decision reinforces that for personal smartphones and computers, the owner’s oath of accuracy via a self-certificate is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of Section 65B, preventing redundant procedural hurdles in civil disputes. The High Court ordered the trial court to accept the documents, effectively allowing the petitioner’s electronic evidence to be marked during the trial.