THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS THAT LED TO THIS DECISION

1. 2014- Hon’ble SC in Anvar P V vs. PK Basheer held that the procedural requirement of Sec 65 B must be fulfilled to rely on the electronic record to test its admissibility in the court.
2. 2015 – SC in Tomasa Bruno and Anr. vs. State of UP held the electronic evidence to be admissible and that Secs. 65 A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act are means of clarification and are only procedural provisions. They are not a complete code on the subject. A certificate is not required under Sec. 65 B
3. 2016- SC in K. Ramajyam vs. Inspector of Police held that in lieu of the certificate, evidence aliunde (elsewhere) could be given by the person who was in possession of the device.
4. 2018- SC in Shafhi Mohammed vs. State of Himachal Pradesh held that procedural requirement of Sec 65 B (4) could be relaxed and exempted for the sake of justice, provided a party is not in possession of the device.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT-

1. Determining the validity of the appellant’s election.
2. To furnish a clear settlement of law regarding furnishing of the certificate under Sec 65 (4)

“Can a woman, forced to leave her matrimonial home due to acts and conduct that constitute cruelty, initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the court where she has sought shelter with her parents or other family members?”

Can secondary evidence prove a Will?

Is the time limit for giving a written statement under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, directory or mandatory?

Can an order of injunction be quashed and set aside due to the suppression of material facts, abuse of the court process, failure to approach the court with clean hands, or perpetrating fraud upon the court?