Electronic Record is any data, record, image, or sound that is generated, stored, received, or sent in electronic form, including computer-generated microfiche or microfilm. Under Indian law, electronic records are defined in Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and are granted legal recognition equivalent to paper documents. Their admissibility as evidence is governed by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides:
"Electronic record" means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides a corresponding definition:
Section 2(1)(e): "Electronic record" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The legal recognition of electronic records is established by Section 4 of the IT Act, 2000:
Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is — (a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.
For evidential purposes, Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 BSA) creates a deeming fiction: information contained in an electronic record that is printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media, and produced by a computer, is deemed to be a document and is admissible as evidence — subject to the mandatory requirement of a Section 65B certificate.
How courts have interpreted this term
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [(2014) 10 SCC 473]
The Supreme Court (three-judge bench) delivered the foundational judgment on the admissibility of electronic records. The Court held that secondary electronic evidence (copies of electronic records stored on CD, DVD, pen drive, etc.) is admissible only if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court overruled the earlier position in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), which had permitted electronic evidence without a Section 65B certificate. This decision established that the certificate requirement is mandatory, not directory.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1]
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement of a Section 65B(4) certificate for secondary electronic evidence but introduced an important qualification: where the original electronic record is produced before the court, the Section 65B certificate is not required. The Court clarified that the certificate is needed only when a party is relying on a copy of the electronic record and not producing the original device itself.
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 801]
The Supreme Court held that the requirement of a Section 65B certificate should not be used as a technicality to defeat justice. Where the person producing the electronic evidence is in a position to secure the certificate but fails to do so, the court may allow an opportunity to produce the certificate subsequently rather than rejecting the evidence outright. This judgment tempered the strict approach in Anvar P.V.
Why this matters
Electronic records permeate every aspect of modern life and litigation. Emails, WhatsApp messages, CCTV footage, bank statements, social media posts, website content, GPS data, and digital contracts are all electronic records within the meaning of the IT Act. Their proper treatment in legal proceedings is critical for both civil and criminal cases.
For litigants and practitioners, the single most important practical consequence is the Section 65B certificate requirement. An electronic record that is otherwise genuine and relevant can be rendered inadmissible if the mandatory certificate is not produced. This has proved decisive in numerous cases where critical evidence — such as call records, CCTV footage, or digital communications — was excluded because the proponent failed to obtain the certificate before or during trial.
The Section 65B certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant computer device and must identify the electronic record, describe the manner in which it was produced, and certify the conditions under which the original record was created. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the electronic evidence inadmissible as secondary evidence.
For businesses, the legal recognition of electronic records under Section 4 of the IT Act has significant implications for record-keeping, contract formation, and regulatory compliance. Electronic records maintained in compliance with the Act carry the same legal force as physical documents, enabling paperless operations across sectors.
Related terms
Parent framework:
Sibling concepts:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Is a Section 65B certificate always required for electronic evidence?
A Section 65B(4) certificate is required when a party produces secondary electronic evidence — i.e., a copy of the original electronic record (such as a printout, CD/DVD copy, or pen drive). If the original device containing the electronic record is produced before the court, the certificate is not required, as held by the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020).
What must a Section 65B certificate contain?
The certificate must: (1) identify the electronic record; (2) describe the manner in which it was produced; (3) give the particulars of the device involved in the production of the record; and (4) be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. The certificate must be produced during trial, not obtained subsequently (though courts have shown flexibility in allowing late production in some cases).
Are WhatsApp messages admissible as evidence in India?
Yes, WhatsApp messages are electronic records within the meaning of Section 2(1)(t) of the IT Act and are admissible as evidence. However, if produced as screenshots or printouts (secondary evidence), they must be accompanied by a Section 65B certificate. The authenticity and integrity of the messages may also be challenged by the opposing party.
What changed with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
The BSA, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act from 1 July 2024, largely retains the framework for electronic evidence. Section 63 BSA corresponds to Section 65B of the old Act, with the certificate requirement for secondary electronic evidence preserved. The BSA also explicitly recognises electronic and digital records as documents, and Section 2(1)(e) adopts the IT Act definition of "electronic record."
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.