LANDMARK CASE
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
(2020) 7 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · Evidence
At a glance
- Citation: (2020) 7 SCC 1
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Evidence
- In one line: The certificate is a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence, but not needed when the original device is produced. Courts can order its production.
1 Facts
Video recordings were offered in an election dispute, and the certificate could not be obtained.
2 Issue
Is the Section 65B certificate always required, and what if it cannot be obtained?
3 What the court decided
The certificate is a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence, but not needed when the original device is produced. Courts can order its production.
4 Why it matters
It confirmed Anvar and settled confusion caused by Shafhi Mohammad.
5 Think about it
How would you prove a WhatsApp chat in court today under the BSA?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Evidence
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
- Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1
- Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47
- Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
- State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808
- Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1012
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Arjun Gopal v. Union of IndiaArnab Manoranjan Goswami v. Union of India →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.