Electronic Evidence: SC Relief, Delhi’s New Rules

Electronic evidence is now part of most cases in India. But trials still slow down because of basic mistakes in how digital proof is collected, certified, and shown. A recent Supreme Court clarification in customs matters gives some relief on strict certificates. Delhi High Court’s 2025 rules on electronic evidence and video conferencing formalize video hearings and digital filing. Together, these steps can cut confusion and save time in investigations and trials.

What A Senior Judge Flagged

A senior High Court judge recently said the system still struggles with electronic proof even after decades of digital laws. The judge pointed to daily problems: missing certificates, weak forensic support, and chat screenshots without context. These lead to delays, rejections, and sometimes failed prosecutions, even when strong proof exists. The lesson is simple: better process and clean paperwork can prevent these losses.

Where things go wrong most often

• Chain of custody is weak: Devices are seized without proper sealing, hashing, or step-by-step custody logs.
• Certification is missing or thin: Copies are made to pen drives or discs, but there is no record of how, when, or by whom.
• WhatsApp chat dumps: Screenshots come without device-level validation, metadata, or a forensic report linking the chats to a device and user.
• Poor courtroom presentation: E-bundles are messy, annexures are mislabeled, hash values are missing, and the right witness is not called to explain extraction.

Supreme Court 2025: Customs E-Records And Certificates

What Changed

In customs cases, the Supreme Court clarified that electronic records do not always fail for want of a rigid, fixed-format certificate. When an assessee clearly acknowledges the records in statements, and the department shows due compliance through its official record, the material can be considered even if the exact formal certificate is not on file. This is a practical approach. It does not lower the bar on integrity. It recognizes that acknowledgments and case records may satisfy the law in some customs situations.

What Did Not Change

The need for authenticity, integrity, and proper handling remains. Investigators should still seal, hash, and clone devices. Prosecutors should present forensic support and independent corroboration. Defense can test the chain of custody, voluntariness and clarity of acknowledgments, and the reliability of extraction.

Practical tips from the ruling

• For investigators: Record detailed statements that identify the device, where the files were found, and how they link to goods or transactions. Maintain panchnamas and custody logs. Hash original media and clones. Document the tools and methods used.
• For prosecutors: Map each digital item to acknowledgments or official records. Explain any gap in formal certification and show why the records remain reliable. Corroborate with emails, bank entries, invoices, or call data if relevant.
• For defense: Question custody gaps, late or missing hashes, and incomplete extraction notes. Check whether the acknowledgment was voluntary and specific. Ask for device-level reports if only screenshots are offered.

Delhi’s 2025 Rules: Electronic Evidence And Video Conferencing

What The Rules Do

Delhi has notified unified rules for electronic evidence and video conferencing. They apply across the High Court, all district courts, and tribunals under it. The rules give full legal parity to video proceedings and formally integrate digital filings, electronic records, and remote appearances into daily court work.

Why This Helps

• Certainty: Lawyers and litigants now have a clear procedure for video appearances and digital evidence submission.
• Efficiency: Remote evidence, where allowed, reduces travel, scheduling, and logistics delays.
• Integrity: The rules expect secure platforms, identity checks, and proper documentation.
• Alignment: The rules sit with newer criminal procedure and evidence frameworks that allow wider use of electronic modes.

How to prepare for video hearings and e-evidence

• Filing readiness: Keep soft copies and clean scans. Label annexures clearly. Include basic metadata like date, source, and hash for key files where possible.
• VC hygiene: Test internet, mic, and camera. Use a quiet space. Follow the bench protocol for identification and screen sharing.
• E-bundles: Use a neat index with bookmarks. Provide read-only links if permitted. Keep an audit trail for any digital exchange with the registry.
• Privacy: Redact personal or sensitive data. Watermark if required. Do not record proceedings unless allowed in writing.

Clear SOPs And Checklists

A. Device seizure and extraction (for police, customs, and agencies)

• Seizure
  • Photograph the device in place with time and date.
  • Note exact location, user, and any passwords disclosed.
  • Seal in a tamper-evident bag and record seal numbers.
• Hashing and cloning
  • Compute hash of original media and record it in the panchnama.
  • Clone using a write-blocker. Compute and record clone hash.
  • Store original and clone separately with logs.
• Documentation
  • Maintain a chain of custody log listing each handler, date, time, and purpose.
  • Note software and hardware used for extraction, including version.
• Statements and acknowledgments
  • Where lawful and appropriate, record clear statements identifying the device and files. Be specific about folders, filenames, and context.

B. Prosecution preparation

• Authenticity
  • Present hash values, extraction logs, and any expert or lab reports.
• Relevance
  • Tie each file to a charge or issue. Cross-check with bank, GST, email, or telephony records where available.
• Certificate or equivalent
  • Submit the applicable certificate for copied data. In customs, if relying on acknowledgments and official records, explain why and show due compliance.
• Witness plan
  • Call the seizing officer, extractor/analyst, and custodian in a sequence that tells a clear story and supports integrity.

C. Defense strategy

• Integrity challenges
  • Look for missing hashes, gaps in custody, late-created documents, and inconsistencies between screenshots and device data.
• Statement quality
  • Test whether acknowledgments were voluntary, specific, and accurate about which files. Check translations and timestamps.
• Forensic depth
  • Ask for device-level reports, not just chat screenshots. Check timezone settings, EXIF data, and application logs.
• Alternative hypotheses
  • Explore spoofing, forwarded content, or lack of linkage to the accused’s device or accounts.

Section 65B-type certification — a simple explainer
The idea behind certification is simple: when data is copied from a device, the court needs assurance about how the copy was made, by whom, and whether it matches the original. Good practice includes hashes, tool logs, and a clear statement from the responsible person. Many cases fail because only screenshots are filed, with no device context or forensic support. The customs clarification adds flexibility in that domain when there are acknowledgments and official records. But the safest path across most matters is still to certify properly and maintain end-to-end integrity.

The human side: Simple discipline wins
Courts prefer clean steps over complex jargon. A neat panchnama, a sealed bag, a hash value at the right time, and a tidy e-bundle often decide whether evidence is accepted or doubted. WhatsApp chats alone are not enough. Link them to the device, network records, or other independent proof. With Delhi’s rules, video hearings and digital filings are now everyday tools. Basic tech hygiene and preparation are professional essentials.

FAQs