Question

Which of the following statements is not true with respect to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

• A. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 stands as the latest interpretation of the relevant provisions.
• B. The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic evidence.
• C. In P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer, the Court held that Section 65B is a complete code for electronic evidence.
• D. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, electronic records could be admitted without strict compliance of Section 65B.

Hint:

For electronic evidence questions, remember the sequence: Navjot Sandhu \(\rightarrow\) P.V. Anvar \(\rightarrow\) Arjun Panditrao. The latest authoritative position requires compliance with Section 65B.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Tracking how Section 65B case law developed over time shows which statement no longer holds. The trend runs from an initially relaxed view toward strict enforcement of the certificate requirement.

1. Early stage, Navjot Sandhu: at one point the Court allowed electronic records in through Sections 63 and 65 without insisting on a certificate, but this stage of the law did not survive.
2. Correction, P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer: the Court reversed course and treated Section 65B as a complete code, meaning it exclusively governs the admissibility of electronic evidence.
3. Confirmation, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar: the most recent authority reaffirmed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory and a condition precedent, settling the field as the latest word on the subject.

Because the law moved past the relaxed Navjot Sandhu position, describing electronic evidence as admissible without strict compliance is the one statement that does not hold up today.

The correct answer is the statement about Navjot Sandhu allowing admission without strict compliance of Section 65B.

Answer 2

Every option in this question can be measured against a single test, does it correctly describe whether a Section 65B(4) certificate is indispensable for admitting electronic evidence.

1. Option (A): Calling Arjun Panditrao Khotkar the latest interpretation is accurate, since it is the most recent binding pronouncement that settles the certificate debate, and nothing since has displaced it.
2. Option (B): Describing the certificate as a condition precedent correctly states the rule as reaffirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, without it, secondary electronic evidence cannot be received.
3. Option (C): P.V. Anvar v. P.K. Basheer did treat Section 65B as an exhaustive, complete code covering electronic evidence, so this statement is correctly attributed.
4. Option (D): Saying electronic records could be admitted in Navjot Sandhu without strict compliance describes a position the higher bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar specifically disapproved of. Measured against the certificate-is-indispensable test that now governs the field, this description fails.

Applying the certificate-as-condition-precedent test across all four options isolates the Navjot Sandhu description as the one that does not match the current legal position.

The correct answer is the statement about Navjot Sandhu allowing admission without strict compliance of Section 65B.