The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical ambiguity in the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, affirming that a self-certificate issued by the person in lawful control of a device - such as a mobile phone - is legally sufficient, provided it meets all statutory requirements. This ruling resolves a recurring procedural hurdle in family and civil litigation involving digital communications.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri Mangena Sri Venkataramana, filed H.M.O.P. No. 66 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Amalapuram seeking divorce from his wife, the respondent, under Sections 13(1)(ia), (iii), and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He sought to rely on electronic records - including WhatsApp messages, email prints, digital photographs, bank statements, Amazon order confirmations, and an HP DVD - as evidence to substantiate allegations of cruelty and mental harassment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed I.A. No. 322 of 2022 seeking permission to produce additional documents
- I.A. No. 319 of 2022 was filed to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking electronic evidence
- Both applications were allowed by the trial court on 15.08.2022 and 20.09.2022 respectively
- On 06.10.2023, the trial court passed the impugned order rejecting the marking of electronic records on the ground that no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act had been produced by a "proper authority"
- The petitioner submitted self-certificates attesting to the authenticity of the electronic records retrieved from his personal mobile phone and computer
- The documents sought to be marked included: WhatsApp status updates, chat screenshots, email prints, digital photographs, bank statements (CITI Bank), and an HP DVD containing video recordings
- The petitioner did not obtain certified copies of bank statements from the bank, relying instead on printed versions from his personal records
Procedural History
- 15.08.2022: I.A. No. 322 of 2022 allowed for production of additional documents
- 20.09.2022: I.A. No. 319 of 2022 allowed for recall of P.W.1 to mark electronic evidence
- 06.10.2023: Trial Court passed order rejecting marking of electronic records due to absence of "certificate by proper authority"
- 12.10.2023: Petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1239 of 2024 before the High Court
- 23.02.2026: Case reserved for judgment
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the trial court’s order dated 06.10.2023 and direction to permit marking of all electronic records - WhatsApp status, email prints, digital photographs, HP DVD, bank statements, and Amazon order copies - on the basis of his self-certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
The Legal Issue
Whether a self-certificate issued by the person in lawful control of a device - such as a mobile phone or computer - constitutes a valid certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Ms. Anita Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the trial court erred in requiring a certificate from a "proper authority" rather than recognizing that Section 65B(4) permits certification by any person in lawful control of the device. She relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, which explicitly held that the certificate may be issued by the person who has lawful control over the device from which the electronic record is retrieved. She further contended that the trial court’s interpretation was rigid, contrary to the spirit of the Family Courts Act, which encourages flexibility in evidence reception.
For the Respondent
Sri Bhusarapu Brahma Yesubabu, counsel for the respondent, contended that Section 65B mandates a formal certificate issued by a competent authority, and that a self-certificate lacks reliability and is susceptible to manipulation. He argued that the trial court’s refusal was justified under the strict evidentiary standards of the Evidence Act and that the petitioner had failed to obtain original bank statements or certified copies from the source institutions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the trial court was not a Family Court, and therefore the broader evidentiary discretion granted under Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act did not apply. The court emphasized that the issue was purely one of admissibility under the Evidence Act.
The Court then turned to the landmark judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal, which unequivocally held that the certificate under Section 65B(4) need not be issued by a third-party authority but may be furnished by the person in lawful possession or control of the device containing the electronic record. The Court observed:
"The certificate under Section 65B(4) must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position, or the user in possession of the device. It is not necessary that the certificate be issued by a technical expert or a government authority."
The Court further clarified the mandatory contents of a valid certificate: it must (i) identify the electronic record being produced; (ii) describe the manner in which it was produced; (iii) specify the device involved; and (iv) affirm that the device was operating properly or that any malfunction did not affect the integrity of the record.
The trial court’s error lay in its assumption that only a certificate from a "proper authority" - interpreted as an external or institutional entity - was acceptable. The High Court held this interpretation to be legally untenable. The petitioner’s self-certificates, though self-generated, were not inherently invalid. Their admissibility depended not on the identity of the certifier, but on whether they satisfied the statutory conditions laid down in Section 65B(4).
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s failure to obtain original bank statements from CITI Bank was a valid ground for rejecting those particular documents, as they could not be verified as true copies. However, this did not extend to the other electronic records retrieved from his personal devices.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The order dated 06.10.2023 of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, was set aside. The trial court is directed to re-examine the self-certificates submitted by the petitioner for WhatsApp status, email prints, WhatsApp screenshots, digital photographs, and the HP DVD. If these certificates satisfy the requirements under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, the documents shall be permitted to be marked as evidence. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Self-Certificates Are Legally Valid Under Section 65B
- Practitioners may now confidently file self-certificates for electronic evidence retrieved from personal devices, including mobile phones and laptops
- The certificate need not come from a telecom provider, ISP, or government agency
- The certifier must be the person in lawful possession or control of the device at the time of retrieval
Document Authentication Requires Specificity
- A self-certificate must explicitly state: the nature of the electronic record (e.g., "WhatsApp chat between X and Y on 12.03.2023")
- It must describe how the record was extracted (e.g., "screenshot taken from iPhone 12, model A1234")
- It must affirm the device was functioning properly at the time of capture
- Vague or boilerplate certificates will still be rejected
Bank Statements Require Original Certification
- Printed bank statements from personal records are inadmissible unless certified by the bank
- Petitioners must obtain certified copies from financial institutions for such records to be admissible
- This distinction reinforces the need for careful evidence planning in matrimonial and financial disputes
