{"id":6488,"date":"2014-09-20T11:09:00","date_gmt":"2014-09-20T11:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6488"},"modified":"2015-10-14T15:41:53","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T10:11:53","slug":"ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/","title":{"rendered":"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/span><\/b>: Deciding the admissibility of the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic evidence, the 3-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman, JJ overruled the ruling of the Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 <\/i> (Navjot Sandhu Case) to that extent. The bench noted that the Court in the aforementioned case omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A of the Evidence Act, 1872 and hence erred in holding that that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, of an electronic record.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Overruling the legal position as to electronic evidence as laid down in Navjot Sandhu <\/i>Case, the Court, applying the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant<\/i> (special law will always prevail over the general law), held that the evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case where appellant and respondent were represented by Vivek Chib and Kapil Sibal, respectively, the appellant sought the set aside the election of the elected candidate on account of corrupt practice and produced CDs which were made after recording the speeches, songs and announcements using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer. It was held that since the CDs produced were not certified, the same were not admissible as secondary evidence. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012<\/i>, decided on 18.09.2014<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

To read the full judgment, refer SCCOnLine<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: Deciding the admissibility of the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic evidence, the 3-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and Kurian <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[3121],"class_list":["post-6488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supremecourt","tag-electronic_evidence"],"yoast_head":"\nRuling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled | SCC Times<\/title>\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\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: Deciding the admissibility of the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic evidence, the 3-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and Kurian\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/\" \/>\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=\"2014-09-20T11:09:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-14T10:11:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/\",\"name\":\"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-09-20T11:09:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-14T10:11:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled | SCC Times","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\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled","og_description":"Supreme Court: Deciding the admissibility of the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic evidence, the 3-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and Kurian","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2014-09-20T11:09:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-14T10:11:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/","name":"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2014-09-20T11:09:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-14T10:11:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":245535,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/13\/electronic-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":6488,"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 "Op Eds"","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":249392,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/07\/electronic-evidence-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":6488,"position":1},"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 "Op Eds"","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":[]},{"id":333615,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/23\/electronic-evidence-in-focus-navigating-legal-shifts-in-the-law-on-electronic-evidence-under-the-bsa-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":6488,"position":2},"title":"Electronic Evidence in Focus: Navigating Legal Shifts in the Law on Electronic Evidence under the BSA, 2023","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Divyansha Goswami\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Electronic Evidence in Focus","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Electronic-Evidence-in-Focus.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Electronic-Evidence-in-Focus.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Electronic-Evidence-in-Focus.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Electronic-Evidence-in-Focus.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232214,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/14\/sc-clarifies-law-on-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-without-certificate-under-section-65b-of-evidence-act-1872\/","url_meta":{"origin":6488,"position":3},"title":"SC clarifies law on admissibility of electronic evidence without certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a reference dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with admissibility of electronic records, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.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":6488,"position":4},"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 "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"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":6488,"position":5},"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 "Cases Reported"","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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6488","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6488\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}