Author: Ekta Pradhan, Amity University Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Introduction

The 21st century has seen a major increase in the use of technology. This development has changed the way societies function and how crimes are committed and resolved. As more areas of life, such as communication, banking, and government, move online, digital evidence has become a key part of legal disputes. Forms like emails, text messages, CCTV footage, mobile data, and blockchain transactions are important in both civil and criminal cases. In India, dealing with digital evidence brings up unique challenges. Nonetheless, also creates opportunities to improve the justice system. As courts begin to use digital
solutions and electronic court systems, it is important for judges, lawyers, investigators, and researchers to understand how digital evidence works.

Legal Recognition of Digital Evidence

The Indian legal system officially recognized electronic evidence through the Information Technology Act 2000, which updated the Indian Evidence Act 1872.Section 65B of the IEA sets specific requirements for admitting electronic records. It states that such records must come with a certificate that explains how they were created and confirms their authenticity. The significant ruling in State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu (2005), commonly referred to as the Parliament Attack Case, permitted the use of electronic records without requiring a certificate at first. However, this was altered by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014), where the court emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to Section 65B. 3 In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Court reiterated the essential nature of the certificate, highlighting its importance in verifying the authenticity of digital records.

Challenges in Handling Digital Evidence

Even with clear rules and court rulings, there are still several practical issues. One challenge is the complexity of technology. Digital evidence needs expert skills for retrieval, preservation, and analysis. Law enforcement often struggles because they lack the expertise to use advanced forensic tools. Another issue is the sensitivity of digital data. Unlike physical evidence, digital data is easily altered, deleted, or damaged, which raises questions about its reliability. Jurisdictional challenges also complicate the collection of digital evidence, especially with cloud computing. Data is often stored in multiple countries, requiring navigation of complex international legal systems to access it. Maintaining a continuous chain of custody is also crucial. Any mistake in this process can lead to digital evidence being rejected in court. Privacy is another concern. With the rise of surveillance technologies, there are questions about the right to privacy, which was confirmed as a fundamental right in the case of Justice
K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017).

Opportunities for Strengthening Justice

Although there are challenges, digital evidence presents significant opportunities to enhance the justice system. Firstly, digital documentation such as call detail records, GPS information, and video surveillance offers objective insights that lessen the dependence on unreliable eyewitness accounts. Secondly, courts can utilize digital records to minimize delays and guarantee timely trials. The implementation of e-filing and virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the potential for technology to transform the process. Thirdly, digital forensics has become crucial in tackling cybercrime, financial fraud, and
terrorism. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in examining large datasets further aids investigators. Lastly, when proceedings are recorded and case files are digitized, it enhances transparency and accountability. This lowers the chances of procedural mistakes and fosters trust in the justice system.

Comparative Perspective

When examining jurisdictions outside of India, there are important lessons to be learned about the management of digital evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in the United States adopt a more adaptable method. Their emphasis is on relevance and reliability rather than rigid certificates. The significant case of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
established standards for admissibility based on scientific soundness. Similarly, the United Kingdom’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 offers a systematic approach to digital evidence. It includes measures designed to ensure both reliability and authenticity. These comparative models suggest that India may need to consider reforms to strike a balance between strict procedural requirements and practical realities.

Reforms Needed in India

To fully leverage digital evidence, India requires a comprehensive approach. The foremost priority should be enhancing capacity. Continuous training for judges, prosecutors, and investigators on managing electronic evidence is essential. It is also vital to invest in cutting- edge forensic facilities across the nation. There is a need for clearer regulations to address emerging technologies such as blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and artificial intelligence. We must bolster international collaboration to facilitate the sharing of evidence across borders in cases involving cybercrime and terrorism. Finally, it is important to establish privacy safeguards to ensure that the acceptance of evidence does not compromise fundamental rights.

Conclusion

To fully leverage digital evidence, India requires a comprehensive approach. The foremost priority should be enhancing capacity. Continuous training for judges, prosecutors, and investigators on managing electronic evidence is essential. It is also vital to invest in cutting- edge forensic facilities across the nation. There is a need for clearer regulations to address emerging technologies such as blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and artificial intelligence. We must bolster international collaboration to facilitate the sharing of evidence across borders in cases involving cybercrime and terrorism. Finally, it is important to establish privacy safeguards to ensure that the acceptance of evidence does not compromise fundamental rights.

References:

[1] Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 65B.
[2] State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.
[3] Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473.
[4] Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1.

[5] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[6] Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (1993); Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 (UK).