The Evidence Act's Blemishes: A PG Law Student's Lament

Evidence Act 1872: A patchwork of archaic provisions that refuse to yield to the 21st century's digital realities The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an enigma. One moment it's a stalwart guardian of justice, the next it's a relic of colonial times, struggling to keep pace with the frenetic pace of modern India. As a student of PG law, I've come to realize that the Act's blemishes are as much a part of its charm as they are its curse. Take, for instance, the infamous Section 65B(2), which makes it a condition precedent for the admissibility of digital evidence that the document must be authenticated by the person who created it. This provision is a woefully inadequate response to the digital age, where documents are created, shared, and deleted in a flash. Section 91, which empowers courts to admit any document that appears to be relevant, is another such provision that raises more questions than answers. What exactly does 'relevant' mean in this context? And what's the standard of relevance? These are questions that have puzzled judges and litigants alike for decades. The Bombay High Court's ruling in Damodar Valley Corp. v. Suresh Chand Bhandari (1972) is a case in point. Here, the court held that a letter written by the managing director of a company was not admissible in evidence because it was not relevant. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, but it only serves to highlight the Act's inherent contradictions. But, as we all know, the Evidence Act isn't the only game in town. The 2005 amendment to the Indian IT Act introduced the concept of Best Evidence, which requires that documents be presented in their original form. What's interesting is that this provision has been interpreted to include digital evidence, thus creating a potential conflict with the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court's ruling in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2018) is a landmark case in this regard. Here, the court held that a WhatsApp message could be admitted as primary evidence, effectively bypassing the Evidence Act's authentication requirements. Now, I know what you're thinking. What does all this have to do with anything? Well, my friends, it has everything to do with the reality of Indian law in the 21st century. We're living in an age where digital evidence is the norm, and yet our laws are still struggling to keep pace. The Evidence Act is a relic of the past, and it's high time we revised it to reflect the changing times. But, as we all know, law is a slow and tortuous process. For now, we're stuck with the Blemishes of the Evidence Act. TBH, the dissent was more interesting.