9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 740 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - election of the present Appellant, namely, Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly for the term commencing November, 2014 - presentation of the nomination papers - entirety of the case before the High Court had revolved around four sets of nomination papers that had been filed by the RC. It was the case of the present Respondents that each set of nomination papers suffered from defects of a substantial nature and that, therefore, all four sets of nomination papers, having been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer of the Election Commission, one Smt. Mutha, (RO), the election of the RC be declared void. HELD THAT - The major jurisdictions of the world have come to terms with the change of times and the development of technology and fine-tuned their legislations. Therefore, it is the need of the hour that there is a relook at Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, introduced 20 years ago, by Act 21 of 2000, and which has created a huge judicial turmoil, with the law swinging from one extreme to the other in the past 15 years from STATE (NCT. OF DELHI) VERSUS NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSAN GURU 2005 (8) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT to ANVAR P.V VERSUS P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS 2014 (9) TMI 1007 - SUPREME COURT to Tomaso Bruno 2015 (1) TMI 1307 - SUPREME COURT to SONU @ AMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA 2017 (7) TMI 1366 - SUPREME COURT to Shafhi Mohammad 2018 (1) TMI 1402 - SUPREME COURT . Appeals dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2. Admissibility of electronic records. 3. Requirement and production of certificates under Section 65B(4). 4. Impact of improper acceptance of nomination papers on election results. 5. Compliance with procedural requirements in the context of electronic evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting Section 65B, particularly in light of conflicting judgments. The Court reaffirmed that Section 65B is a special provision for the admissibility of electronic records, which must be adhered to strictly. It clarified that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence and that this requirement cannot be bypassed by oral testimony or other forms of evidence. 2. Admissibility of Electronic Records: The Court emphasized that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate as prescribed under Section 65B(4) to be admissible. This certificate must identify the electronic record, describe the manner of its production, provide particulars of the device used, and be signed by a person in a responsible official position. The Court overruled previous judgments that allowed for the admissibility of electronic records without such certificates, thereby reinforcing the mandatory nature of Section 65B. 3. Requirement and Production of Certificates under Section 65B(4): The Court addressed the practical difficulties in obtaining certificates, especially when the electronic record is not in the possession of the party seeking to produce it. It held that if a party has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the certificate but is unable to do so due to the refusal of the concerned authority, the party can apply to the court for an order to produce the certificate. The Court also noted that the law does not demand the impossible and that in cases where obtaining the certificate is genuinely not possible, the court may excuse the requirement. 4. Impact of Improper Acceptance of Nomination Papers on Election Results: The Court examined whether the improper acceptance of nomination papers materially affects the election results. It held that if the returned candidate's nomination was improperly accepted, it could be assumed that the election was materially affected without needing further proof. This aligns with the principle that the election would be void if the returned candidate's nomination was invalid. 5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements in the Context of Electronic Evidence: The Court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance for the admissibility of electronic evidence. It clarified that the certificate under Section 65B(4) must be produced at the time the electronic record is presented in evidence. However, the Court allowed for some flexibility, noting that if the certificate is not initially available, the trial judge can order its production at a later stage. This ensures that the interests of justice are served without compromising the integrity of the evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's judgment clarifies the strict requirements for the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It reaffirms the necessity of the certificate under Section 65B(4) and provides guidance on how to handle situations where obtaining the certificate is challenging. The judgment also addresses the impact of improper acceptance of nomination papers on election results, emphasizing the need for procedural compliance to ensure fair and just outcomes.
|
