In Brief
In this landmark election case, the Supreme Court clarified the law on admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The case involved a challenged election where video CDs proved that nomination papers were filed late. The returning officer refused to provide the mandatory Section 65B certificate despite Court directions. The Court held that while the certificate is normally mandatory, it can be dispensed with if the party made genuine efforts to obtain it but the authorities willfully refused. The Court also confirmed that where a returned candidate's nomination is improperly accepted, the election's material effect is presumed without separate proof. Tomaso Bruno and Shafhi Mohammad judgments were overruled as incorrectly stating the law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.