{"id":361737,"date":"2025-09-26T12:00:47","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T06:30:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=361737"},"modified":"2025-10-03T10:25:11","modified_gmt":"2025-10-03T04:55:11","slug":"rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/","title":{"rendered":"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Tribunal permitting the respondent to present electronic evidence along with a certificate issued by himself under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65-B<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>, a Single Judge Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Anoop Kumar Dhand, J<\/span>., held that a certificate under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65-B<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> must be provided by the person who originally recorded the video, not by the person to whom the recording was subsequently transferred.<\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The case arose from an application filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002570354\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000053381\" target=\"_blank\">Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001<\/a>. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to produce electronic evidence in the form of a Pen Drive and a CD. These were submitted along with a certificate under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65-B<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> issued by the respondent himself.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal allowing the electronic evidence, the petitioner filed the present petition. The petitioner argued that the original recording was made on the device of another person and therefore, the certificate required under Section 65-B should have been issued by him and not the respondent.<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that the video in question was recorded someone else&#8217;s device and subsequently, the said video was transferred from his device to the device of the respondent who produced the relevant Pen Drive and CD on the record. Then at a later stage a certificate under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65 B<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Evidence Act<\/a> was submitted by the respondent in support of the electronic evidence.<\/p>\n<p>The Court observed that the primary consideration was to determine,<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Whether it is mandatory that a certificate of the person, in whose device the original video was recorded, was required to be submitted under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65-B<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Indian Evidence Act<\/a> or the person in whose device the material has been transferred to, is supposed to issue the certificate under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65-B<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Indian Evidence Act<\/a>?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that the above question was decide by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Dv2057Jr\">(2014) 10 SCC 473<\/a>, wherein it was categorically held that &#8216;such certificate has to be personally signed by the person, who was occupying the relevant device&#8217;. This view was again reiterated in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/ng4M2RO4\">(2020) 7 SCC 1<\/a>, and the Supreme Court further held that, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8216;in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person\/persons referred to in Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516815\" target=\"_blank\">65B(4)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Evidence Act<\/a>, and require that such certificate be given by such person\/persons.&#8217;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court concluded that the certificate submitted by the respondent was not valid because the video was not originally recorded on his device. Further, for the evidence to be admissible, the certificate was required to be submitted by such person on whose device it was recorded.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court, while quashing the Tribunal&#8217;s order, observed that since the electronic evidence was already on record, the respondent was at liberty to submit a certificate from the person on whose device it was originally recorded.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Shwetabh Singhal v. J.K And Sons, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/1sdpTH14\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4870<\/a>, decided on 09-09-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner:<\/span> Govind Purohit, Advocate<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Respondents:<\/span> Poonam Chand Bhandari, Advocate<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">In the case at hand, the video was recorded in someone&#8217;s device and transferred to the device of the respondent who had submitted the certificate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":361747,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[89881,89882,3121,2575,85167,35853,89883],"class_list":["post-361737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-anvar-p-v-v-p-k-basheer","tag-arjun-panditrao-khotkar","tag-electronic_evidence","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-rajasthan-rent-control-act-2001","tag-section-65-b-evidence-act","tag-video-evidence"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Raj HC: Section 65B certificate to be submitted by original device holder | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Section 65-B certificate under Evidence Act must be personally signed by the person on whose device the video evidence was originally made.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Section 65-B certificate under Evidence Act must be personally signed by the person on whose device the video evidence was originally made.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-26T06:30:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-03T04:55:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/\",\"name\":\"Raj HC: Section 65B certificate to be submitted by original device holder | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-26T06:30:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-03T04:55:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Section 65-B certificate under Evidence Act must be personally signed by the person on whose device the video evidence was originally made.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 65-B certificate\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj HC: Section 65B certificate to be submitted by original device holder | SCC Times","description":"Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Section 65-B certificate under Evidence Act must be personally signed by the person on whose device the video evidence was originally made.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Section 65-B certificate under Evidence Act must be personally signed by the person on whose device the video evidence was originally made.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-26T06:30:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-03T04:55:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/","name":"Raj HC: Section 65B certificate to be submitted by original device holder | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-26T06:30:47+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-03T04:55:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Section 65-B certificate under Evidence Act must be personally signed by the person on whose device the video evidence was originally made.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 65-B certificate"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/rajasthan-high-court-section-65-b-certificate-evidence-act-original-device-holder\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-65-B-certificate.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":245535,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/13\/electronic-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":361737,"position":0},"title":"Changing Facades of Law on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence","author":"Editor","date":"March 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Vikas Upadhyay* &\u00a0 Prakash Upadhyay ** \u00a0","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Electronic-Evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Electronic-Evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Electronic-Evidence.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Electronic-Evidence.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Electronic-Evidence.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293277,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/27\/5-high-courts-to-get-new-chief-justices\/","url_meta":{"origin":361737,"position":1},"title":"5 High Courts to get new Chief Justices","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"KERALA HIGH COURT \u21aa Shri Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Judge, Kerala High Court, appointed as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office. HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT \u21aa\u00a0Shri Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao, Judge, Punjab & Haryana\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Appointments &amp; Transfers&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Appointments &amp; Transfers","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/appointments\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"new chief justices of high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":53201,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/articles-published-in-2016-scc-vol-5-june-21-2016-part-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":361737,"position":2},"title":"Articles published in 2016 SCC Vol. 5 June 21, 2016 Part 4","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 30, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: It has been highlighted in this article that the admissibility of the secondary electronic evidence has to be adjudged in the light of the principles laid down in Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the proposition of law settled in the judgments of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Cases Reported&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":49911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/01\/privilege-communication-between-husband-and-wife-is-not-available-in-family-court-proceedings\/","url_meta":{"origin":361737,"position":3},"title":"Privilege communication between husband and wife is admissible in Family Court proceedings","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: While deciding a writ petition the Court has stated that Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable to the evidence in the form of Pin Hole camera with a hard disk memory on which a recording was done, as it was submitted as Primary evidence,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":249335,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/05\/impossibility-exception-to-the-section-65-b4-electronic-evidence-certificate\/","url_meta":{"origin":361737,"position":4},"title":"Impossibility Exception to the Section 65-B(4) Electronic Evidence Certificate","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Hasit B. Seth \u2020 Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 42","rel":"","context":"In &quot;'Lex Mercatoria' by Hasit Seth&quot;","block_context":{"text":"'Lex Mercatoria' by Hasit Seth","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/individual\/lex-mercatoria-by-hasit-seth\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249392,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/07\/electronic-evidence-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":361737,"position":5},"title":"The decision in Arjun Panditrao: Admissibility of electronic evidence in India continues to face hurdles","author":"Editor","date":"June 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dhruva Gandhi\u2020 and Nikita Garg\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Evidence.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Evidence.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Evidence.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=361737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361737\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/361747"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}