We, as a society and individuals, are presently more dependent upon Technology.

This
dependency is expanding step by step. It is presently simple to take photos and catch recordings.
In any case, it is likewise simple to doctor them. Regardless, they accommodate a noteworthy
wellspring of proof and suitability of it can't be nullified out appropriately essentially in light of
the fact that there is a probability of them being doctored. Such proof must be permitted in the
wake of following the correct source and confirming its propagation. Suitability of electronic
proof has been made conceivable with the presentation of Information Technology Act, 2002
alongwith pertinent corrections in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Summit court has cleared up
the law with respect to acceptability of electronic proof. In this issue, the court has commanded
go with of a declaration under segment 65B of Indian Evidence Act before any auxiliary
electronic proof can be gone up against record. This imperative isn't to be satisfied on account of
essential electronic proof. Electronic proof is exceedingly defenseless to altering, adjustment and
transposition. To guarantee the source and genuineness of the electronic proof, authentication
under segment 65B is ordered. With this judgment, Supreme Court has put to rest all debates in
regards to the way of affirmation of electronic proof. The recommendation is clear and express
that if the optional electronic proof is without an endorsement u/s 65B of Evidence Act, it isn't
allowable and any feeling of the scientific master and the affidavit of the observer in the
courtroom to demonstrate genuineness of auxiliary electronic proof can't be considered by the
court. The Indian Evidence Act has been altered by righteousness of Section 92 of Information
Technology Act, 2000 (Before correction). Area 3 of the Act was revised and the expression "All
reports delivered for the assessment of the Court" were substituted by "All archives including
electronic records created for the investigation of the Court". As to narrative proof, in Section 59,
for the words "Substance of reports" the words "Substance of archives or electronic records"
have been substituted and Section 65A and 65B were embedded to consolidate the tolerability of
electronic proof.

In Section 61 to 65, "Archive or substance of records" have not been supplanted by "Electronic
reports or substance of electronic records". Subsequently, the expectation of the council is
unequivocally clear i.e. not to expand the appropriateness of segment 61 to 65 to the electronic
record. It is the cardinal rule of elucidation that if the lawmaking body has discarded to utilize
any word, the assumption is that the exclusion is deliberate. It is all around settled that the
Legislature does not utilize any word superfluously. In such manner, the Apex Court in Utkal
Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. Province of Orissa[1] held that "… Parliament is
additionally not anticipated that would convey what needs be pointlessly. Indeed, even as
Parliament does not utilize any word without importance something, Parliament does not enact
where no enactment is called for. Parliament can't be accepted to enact for enactment; nor enjoy
enactment just to state what it is pointless to state or to do what is as of now truly done.
Parliament may not be accepted to administer superfluously."

Then again, in Section 61 to 65 Indian Evidence Act, "Archive or substance of records" have not
been supplanted by "Electronic reports or substance of electronic archives". In this way, the
oversight of, "Electronic Records" in the plan of Section 61 to 65 means the reasonable and
express administrative expectation, i.e. not to expand the relevance of Section 61 to 65 to the
electronic record in perspective of abrogating arrangement of Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act
managing only with the suitability of the electronic record which in perspective of the
convincing innovative reasons can be conceded just in the way indicated under Section 65-B
Indian Evidence Act.

In this examination venture, we will distinguish and dissecting different arrangements relating to
acceptability of electronic proof.

We as a society and as individuals are now more dependent upon techonology. This dependency
is increasing day by day. It is now easy to take photographs and capture videos. However, it is
also easy to doctor them. Ina any case, they provide a major source of evidence and
admissibility of it cannot be negated out rightly simply because there is a possibility of them
being doctored. Such evudence must be allowed in tracking the exact source and certifying its
reproduction.