Anvar P V v P K Basheer (2014) and the subsequent Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) hold that
ASection 65B certificate is purely a directory requirement
BSection 65B(4) certificate is a MANDATORY pre-condition for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence; this overrules Navjot Sandhu (2005) which had permitted oral evidence to substitute the certificate
CElectronic evidence is per se inadmissible
DSection 65B is unconstitutional
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: B. Section 65B(4) certificate is a MANDATORY pre-condition for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence; this overrules Navjot Sandhu (2005) which had permitted oral evidence to substitute the certificate
Anvar P V (3-judge bench) restored the strict Section 65B reading. Arjun Panditrao (3-judge bench, 2020) clarified the timing of the certificate and held the requirement mandatory.
Related questions
Section 112 IEA raises a presumption regarding legitimacy of a child born during the conti'Conclusive proof' as defined in Section 4 IEA meansCross-examination of one's own witness is permitted underSection 132 IEA provides that a witness shall not be excused from answering any question rEstoppel under Section 115 IEA prevents a person from denying the truth of a representatio'Hostile witness' under Section 154 IEA refers to a witnessSection 114 IEA permits the court to PRESUME the existence of any fact which it thinks likUnder Section 27 IEA, the information leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible. Th