A division bench of the Supreme Court has issued a decision that the district courts have needed for years: a clear statement of when electronic material can be admitted as evidence and what a party must show to rely on it. The case arose from a contract dispute in which the plaintiff's main proof was a series of Viber messages and a screenshot of an online bank transfer. The District Court had refused to consider them; the Supreme Court has now held that this was wrong, and has laid down a test that applies in both civil and criminal matters.
Background of the case
The dispute involved a supply agreement negotiated almost entirely by messaging app. When the buyer failed to pay, the supplier sued in the District Court and produced printed screenshots of the chat, the mobile phone itself, and a bank statement. The trial court held that the Evidence Act 2031 recognised only documents and witness testimony and that the screenshots had not been 'proved' in the manner required for documents. The High Court agreed. The Supreme Court reversed both.
What the court decided
The court held that the Electronic Transactions Act 2063 gives electronic records the same legal recognition as paper documents, and that the Evidence Act must be read together with it. Electronic evidence is therefore admissible, but it must be authenticated: the party relying on it must show, through testimony or a certificate from the person who controls the device or system, that the record is what it claims to be and has not been altered. The weight to be given to the evidence remains a matter for the trial judge.
- Identify the source device or system and who controls it
- Explain how the record was produced, stored and retrieved
- Confirm that the record has not been altered since it was created, or explain any changes
- Where possible, produce the original device or a forensic copy, not only a printout
- Give the opposing party a fair opportunity to inspect and challenge the material
The law of evidence cannot remain rooted in a world of ink and paper while the commerce it governs has moved to the screen. What the court must insist upon is not the medium, but the reliability of the record.
Practical implications for litigants
For businesses, the ruling means that chat logs, emails and e-banking records can carry a case, but only if you preserve them properly. Do not delete the original conversation after taking a screenshot, keep the device, and export chats with their metadata where the app allows it. Where the record sits with a third party such as a bank or telecom operator, ask the court early to order production, since a certified copy from the custodian is the strongest form of authentication.
What has not changed
The ruling does not make electronic evidence conclusive. A screenshot that cannot be traced to a device, or a forwarded message with no indication of its origin, may still be given little or no weight. Hearsay rules continue to apply, so a message in which one person reports what someone else said will still face the usual objections. And the court retains its discretion to exclude material obtained by hacking or unlawful interception.