Apar GuptaIn the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is necessary unless the original document is produced. In the case general directions were issued to be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the appropriate stage.
Archives for the tag Supreme Court Of India
Favouring public order over justice
Last week, the Supreme Court gave its much-awaited judgment on the legality of the telecommunications and Internet shutdown orders in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), in place for more than 160 days now. Given the centrality of the Internet in our lives and the fact that the preceding weeks had seen such shutdowns in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi, the ruling was eagerly awaited across the country. However, in its language, structure and the relief granted, the verdict came across more as one premised on legal centrism than one advancing fundamental rights.
When privacy was made supreme
The month of August marks a momentous event in the story of our nationhood as we celebrate our independence from colonial rule. The very basis was a constitutional choice, which civil rights lawyer K G Kannabiran put it as the “termination of imposed suzerainty”. Two years ago, this sentiment seemed to be achieved with the historic decision of the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy Privacy case, in which nine judges unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy. This newspaper reported the apex court’s decision on the front page with the electric headline — Privacy Supreme.
But what about Section 69A?
As your social media timeline is flooded with news of a pathbreaking verdict by the Supreme Court of India on freedom of speech, there is reason to pause. While holding that Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, is unconstitutional and laying down guidelines for online takedowns under the intermediary rules, the court, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, has upheld Section 69A and the blocking rules framed under it.
Charges against AIB are another sign that our hate speech laws need reform
Our goal has to be to reach legal standards that prevent any abuse. At its heart should be removing the tremendous subjectivity that permits the most easily offended to have their day in court as the author, artist or activist spends a night in jail.