LLM Practical Training: Law teaching on latest Supreme court judgment on Electronic Evidence and Video Recordings

Good morning, everyone. Today, we’ll journey together through the fascinating world of video recordings as evidence in Indian courts. By the end, you’ll understand how a simple video from a raid became the centerpiece of a Supreme Court landmark ruling in Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117).

1. The Raid That Sparked a Legal Story

Early one morning in Akot, Maharashtra, officers conducted a raid under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. They seized 147 kg of ganja and recorded every move with a professional videographer’s camera. That continuous footage captured suspects entering a field, officers searching rooms, and the moment contraband was placed into sealed bags.

Students, imagine watching that video and knowing it’s the exact sequence of events—no memories to fade, no confusion over who said what. But how do we ensure the court trusts this video?

2. Section 65B: Turning Video into Legal Gold

Under the Evidence Act, electronic records—like videos—are considered documents. However, to admit them, we rely on Section 65B, which says:

·       Certificate Requirement (Section 65B(4))

A responsible person (for example, the videographer) signs a certificate explaining:

a.       Which device made the recording.

b.      When and how it was recorded.

c.       Any steps taken to process or transfer the file.

Once that certificate is attached, the video becomes a fully recognized document in court—no longer just pixels but a legal record.

3. Keeping the Video Untouched: Chain of Custody

Before certification, the video must be preserved carefully:

·       Seal the original storage media (SD card or DVR) the moment it’s taken from the camera.

·       Log every time someone handles or copies the file.

·       Store it securely so no one can tamper with the recording.

This chain of custody record proves the video is the same from camera to courtroom.

4. The High Court’s Roadblock: Unnecessary Hurdles

At trial, the video—backed by its certificate—helped secure convictions. But the Bombay High Court ordered a retrial, arguing that:

1.       The video had to be played during each witness’s testimony.

2.       Each witness needed to narrate every action they saw on camera.

3.       Transcripts of the entire footage were mandatory.

They treated the video like a book that needed someone to read every page aloud—a requirement never intended by law.

5. The Supreme Court’s Restoration: Let the Video Speak

The Supreme Court stepped in and clarified:

1.       Certified Video = Document

A video with a valid Section 65B(4) certificate stands on its own as documentary evidence. No witness narration or transcript is required for admissibility.

2.       Optional Explanation

If a judge finds part of the video hard to understand, they may call someone to explain specific segments under Section 391 CrPC. This is a discretionary power, not a blanket rule.

3.       Retrial Only for True Emergencies

Retrials are reserved for serious errors—like courts lacking jurisdiction or parties being denied key evidence—rather than procedural hiccups in video presentation.

4.      No Transcript Mandate

Forcing full transcripts would bog down every case with unnecessary work, shifting focus from truth to technicalities.

6. Why This Matters for You

As future law graduates:

·       Remember that Section 65B turns electronic records into documents—focus on understanding certificate requirements.

·       Appreciate the importance of chain of custody for every piece of evidence.

·       Recognize the Supreme Court’s balanced approach: videos need certification but not endless narration.

·       Understand that retrials are exceptional; procedural errors alone won’t automatically earn a second trial.

By mastering these principles, you’ll be well-equipped to analyze and argue cases involving digital evidence. The Kailash judgment ensures that when the future calls for cameras in courtrooms, the law is ready to let video evidence speak clearly and fairly.

Print Page

Courtrooms Go Digital: Interview Questions Every District Judge Must Master on Admissibility of Video Evidence

Here is a set of relevant interview questions (with model answers) for a District Judge interview, specifically tailored from the Supreme Court judgment on the admissibility of video recording and electronic evidence:

Question 1:

Q: Under what conditions is a video recording admissible as evidence in a criminal trial according to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Kailash vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)?

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

The Supreme Court's Definitive Ruling on Video Evidence Admissibility: Kailash vs. State of Maharashtra Sets New Standards for Digital Evidence in Criminal Trial

 

The Supreme Court's recent judgment in Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117) has delivered a landmark clarification on the admissibility of video recordings in criminal proceedings, setting crucial precedents for how courts should handle electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This decision, delivered by Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan on September 15, 2025, fundamentally reshapes the legal landscape surrounding digital evidence while reinforcing the exceptional nature of re-trial orders in criminal cases.

Read full judgment here: click here

The Case Background: NDPS Raid and Video Documentation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Not Required To Play Video Evidence Before Witness Or Transcribe Its Contents For Admissibility

As far as admissibility of video recording i.e., Compact Disc (CD) is concerned, the author of the video i.e., SW No. 2 not only deposed that he recorded the video, but he also gave a certificate, as contemplated Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make the CD admissible in evidence. Interestingly, the High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited as there existed a certificate envisaged Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65B. However, strangely, the High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video. In our view, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning for the simple reason that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s). No doubt, there may be an occasion where to appreciate contents of a video an explanatory statement may be needed, but that would depend on the facts of a case. However, it is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video. Besides that, in the instant case, the search and seizure operation was sought to be proved by oral evidence of witnesses. The video, therefore, was perhaps to corroborate the oral testimony. Even the judgment of the trial court makes it clear that the video was played in court in the presence of all Accused as well as both sides counsels and the presiding officer, upon seeing the video, could spot and confirm the presence of witnesses as well as the Accused at the time of search and seizure. In such circumstances, in our view, a re-trial is not required only to explain the video. {Para 19}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4041 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4646 of 2025)

Decided On: 15.09.2025

Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1117,MANU/SC/1283/2025

Print Page

Bombay HC: The Session Judge must record evidence of Chemical analyser in NDPS Case to Prove CA Report

The next important flaw which can be seen is the failure of the prosecution to examine the CA. It is noticed that in the Vidarbha region, in the trials under the NDPS Act, the CA is not examined. In my view, this is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution. It needs to be placed on record that in Greater Mumbai, in every case under the NDPS Act, the CA is examined. In Vidarbha region, while deciding the appeals against the conviction and sentence in NDPS cases, it is noticed that this aspect is taken for granted by the prosecution. It needs to be stated that in Vidarbha region, the majority of the cases under the NDPS Act are with regard to the seizure of the ganja. The examination of the CA, in the case of the analysis of ganja, is very important because, in the report of the CA the description of the substance in detail is recorded invariably. The description of the substance, seized as a ganja, is required to be proved to bring it within the ambit of the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. In this case, the prosecution has failed to examine the CA. In this case, the learned prosecutor did not produce remnant samples received from the office of CA. Similarly, the prosecutor did not produce the representative samples drawn at the time of the seizure on the spot as well as drawn in presence of the learned Magistrate at the time of the inventory. The remnant samples are required to be shown to the CA to bring on record the nature of the narcotic drug and the description of the drugs. Similarly, the representative samples are required to be opened before the Court at the time of the evidence of the concerned witness. The presiding officer is required to note down the description of the narcotic drug/substance found in the sample packets. It is further pertinent to mention that if the seized drug is not destroyed, then the same shall also be produced before the Court while recording the evidence of the witness. The description of the substance found in the packets/sacks shall also be recorded. The learned presiding officer is required to record this part of the evidence very meticulously and note down the description of substance.

{Para 18}

 19. I am conscious of the fact that under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reports of certain Government scientific experts may be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The record shows that no specific order was passed by the learned Judge, while admitting the CA report. It is to be noted that, in cases under the NDPS Act, as and when a CA report is tendered, the Court shall insist the prosecutor to examine the CA. If the CA is available, then the learned Judge shall not exhibit the report without examining the CA. The trial of the offences under the NDPS Act cannot be taken lightly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 449 of 2023 and 457 of 2024

Decided On: 25.10.2024

Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.A. Sanap, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7026/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What procedure the court should adopt while recording evidence of CD or pen drive or any other electronic gadget in criminal trial?

 

It is to be noted that the video recording of the entire process was the best evidence in the possession of the prosecution. The question that was required to be addressed by the learned Judge while recording such evidence was as to how it has to be converted into legally admissible evidence. The learned Judge and the learned prosecutor have committed a procedural error. The proper procedure had not been followed. In this case, the main witnesses are the panch witnesses, the photographer, other members of the raiding party and the investigating officer. If the evidence consists of a video recording of the particular incident or part of the incident, the recorded incident must be proved through the concerned witness. As far as the video recording or recorded CCTV footage is concerned, the witness who is an eyewitness to the incident or acted as a panch witness or in other capacity, must describe the incident on oath before the Court. In such a case, at the time of recording the evidence of the concerned witness, the video recording, either recorded in the CD or pen drive or any other electronic gadget, must be played on the screen. The witness, after playing the CD, must describe or translate the video recording or the contents of the recording in his own words on oath before the Court. If it is an audio recording, then the part of the audible conversation must be transcribed and placed on record under the signature of the investigating officer. Unless and until the recorded video or CCTV footage is played at the stage of evidence of the witness, the witness would not be able to describe or narrate the incident in his or her own words on oath before the Court. In this way, at the stage of recording of evidence, each and every witness concerned with the video recording of the incident or any part of the incident must describe or narrate the incident in his or her own words on oath before the Court. If it is not so done, then it would be very difficult to understand or read that video recording by the presiding officer, prosecutor or Advocate. This procedure has to be scrupulously followed. This has not happened in this case. The CD was not played while recording the evidence of the panch witnesses, the photographer, the other members of the raiding party and the investigating officer. It is therefore apparent that the legally admissible evidence as to the contents of the recording/CD has not at all been recorded. {Para 15}

16. The CD is a part of the record. At the stage of the arguments in these appeals, the CD was played in the Court. It is evident that the video recording commenced with the apprehension of the appellant. The CD contains the recording of the inspection of hut, recovery of the substance, the description of the substance and further part of the proceedings. The CD further contains the recording of the raid and recovery at the house of Shatrughna. The learned Judge was required to play the CD at the time of recording evidence of each witness and record the contents appearing on the screen with the help of the concerned witness. If this procedure had been followed, then the contents of the CD would have become legally admissible evidence. This procedure had not been followed. This has caused prejudice to the appellants as well as to the prosecution. The important evidence collected in the form of the video recording has not been converted into legally admissible evidence. In order to verify the correct factual position, at the stage of the argument of the appeals, the video recording was played. It was very difficult to understand the contents of the CD. If the evidence of the witnesses had been recorded on playing the video recording at the time of the evidence, then the oral testimony of the witnesses on oath, as to the contents of the CD would have been part of the record.

17. It is evident that in this case the detailed description of the ganja has not been recorded in the panchanama. Similarly, the detailed description of the ganja has not been stated by the witnesses. The substance seized from the possession of the appellant can be seen from the video recording. It was necessary to show this part of the recording to the witnesses and record the description of the substance in detail through each and every witness. In my view, this is a fundamental flaw in this case. The appellants could not be held responsible for this mistake or rather a mess. It was the responsibility of the learned prosecutor to insist before the learned Judge to play the CD when the witnesses were in the witness box. It was not done by the learned Prosecutor/ incharge of the case. Similarly, the learned Judge did not follow this procedure scrupulously. It seems that the learned Judge did not act diligently while recording the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the incident or a part of the incident video-graphed by the investigating officer. Learned Judge has observed in his judgment that there was no objection as such on the part of the appellants to this CD. In my view, this observation is totally perverse. This observation is not only against the appellants, but it is also against the prosecution. In this case, the required evidence as to the contents of the video recording or CD has not been properly recorded. There is a procedural error. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 449 of 2023 and 457 of 2024

Decided On: 25.10.2024

Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.A. Sanap, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7026/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC guidelines regarding video recording of all proceeding under SC & ST (Atrocities Act) including bail application

 In view of this discussion, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

(1) The 'proceedings' under Section 15-A(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 would cover all proceedings including a 'judicial proceeding' as contemplated under section 2(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2) It would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 even though the proceedings are held in open court.

The objective to be achieved is effective implementation of the Amended Chapter IV-A of the Atrocities Act, which is meant to protect the rights of victims and witnesses.

(3) Hearing of a bail application under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is a 'judicial proceeding' as contemplated under section 15-A of the Atrocities Act.

(4) Section 15-A (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 can be implemented in the absence of rules framed under the Act or formulation of a scheme for implementation. {Para 34}

35. Having answered the reference thus, the question would arise regarding the fate of the matters which are already decided wherein the proceedings were not video recorded. We are holding in this judgment that Section 15-A(10) of the Atrocities Act is mandatory. This judgment answering the reference will not affect the past proceedings which are not recorded. Effect of this judgment would be prospective.

36. It is also to be kept in mind that as of today all the Courts are not equipped with the facility of video recording. As mentioned earlier, as per Section 21 of the Atrocities Act it is the duty of the State Government to provide these facilities. Therefore, we direct the State Government to provide the facility of video recording in all the Courts in the State of Maharashtra wherever the proceedings under the Atrocities Act are to be taken up. This shall be done at the earliest. However, till the time such facilities are provided, the Courts where the facilities are not provided, may proceed without video recording the proceedings especially when the personal liberty of an accused is at stake.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2019

Decided On: 13.03.2024

Hema Suresh Ahuja and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.K. Upadhyaya, C.J. and Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1654/2024.

Print Page

Process for selection to public posts must be videographed: SC

We are of the view that for the purity of selection to the public posts, it is desirable that as far as possible the selection process conducted by the selection bodies, especially the State Public Service Commissions and the State Selection Boards, is videographed. It is desirable that at examination centres as well as interview centres CCTV cameras are installed to the extent viable. Footage thereof may be seen by an independent committee of three members and report of such committee may be placed on the website concerned.

In the Supreme Court of India

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

(Before Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33995-34027/2017

The State of Meghalaya & Anr. etc. 

v.

Phikirbha Khariah & Ors. etc. 

Decided on April 6, 2018

Citation:2018 SCC OnLine SC 336

Print Page

How to prove authenticity of video recording?

 One may also note here times have changed and so has the technology. It is, therefore, necessary to move along with the times even in terms of appreciation of such evidences. It is true that the technology has made it easier to doctor or morph video material but it is not necessary to view it with unusual suspicion. If the technology is available to doctor or morph video tapes than the technology is also available to detect the same. 1 Court of Its Own Motion v State WP (CRL.) NO. 796/2007 Judgment of Delhi High Court dated 21 August 2008 Para 129 C.C. No. 52/11 79 of 99

33. I am of the view by and large there are only two factors one which a Court need to seek while admitting a video in evidence. One, that it is relevant and the other that it is genuine and not tempered with.

34. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. M. Malkani as under:

"Just as a photograph taken without the knowledge of the person photographed can become relevant and admissible so does a tape record of a conversation unnoticed by the talkers. The Court will take care in two directions in admitting such evidences. First, the Court will find out that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutiliation. Secondly, the Court may also secure scrupulous conduct and behaviour on behalf of the police. The reason is that the Police Officer more likely to behave properly if improperly obtained evidence is liable to be viewed with care and caution by the judge."

35. As one would notice the main focus is on inquiry being directed towards finding out as to whether the tape recorded conversation is "free form tampering and mutiliation". Second aspect is more for putting the investigating officer on notice that the  evidence not collected properly would lead the court to view it with "care and caution".

36. I would like to make reference to the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case Deepak Kumar Vs State Crl. Appeal No. 1315 of 2011 decided on 09.01.2012 wherein the previous judgments on the subject had been referred and following conditions were laid down by the Hon'ble High Court for admitting a tape recorded conversation in evidence:

a) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.

b) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.

c) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.

d) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.

C.C. No. 52/11 81 of 99

e) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.

f) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.

a.The above conditions can be broadly divided in two parts. Conditions (a), (d) and (f) relate to relevancy for unless the voice is identified and is audible or intelligible the tape recorded conversation or voice is meaningless in so far the relevancy is concerned. The other conditions (b) (c) and (e) relate to the integrity of the recording. With the advent of the new technologies the above objective can be achieved by forensic examination. In specific reference to videotapes it can be done by resorting i.e. speaker identification by conducting spectrography analysis and other auditory examinations to determine the voice of the speaker and by examination of videotapes by using VISAR tool, Vectorscope and waveform monitor to determine that a videotape is genuine and not tempered with."

Delhi District Court

Picture Houses Ltd. vs . Wednesbury Corporation. [1948] ... on 4 July, 2014

Author: Sh. L.K. Gaur

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI L.K. GAUR, SPECIAL JUDGE
                P.C. ACT (CBI­09), CENTRAL DISTRICT, 
                       TIS HAZARI: DELHI 


CC No.52/2011
R.C. No.48(A)/04
Case I.D No.02401R0710582007

Print Page

Whether CD Evidence not accompanied by contemporaneous certificate as per S 65B of evidence Act is admissible?

 Relying upon the judgment in the case of Anwar P.V. (supra), this Court elaborated upon the mode of proving of electronic record by order dated 4-1-2016 passed in E.P. No. 24/2014 (Kamal Patel Vs Ramkishore Dogne, as hereunder:

"12. In the case at hand, the objectionable matter formed part of the speeches made in the public meetings convened by the respondent. Those speeches were recorded video-graphed by the Election Commission, presumably by using video cameras. Thereafter, the contents of the memory card of the video cameras must have been transferred to a computer and the CDs forming record of the Election Commission must have been prepared. Thus, even the so called original CDs in the record of the Election Commission, would not constitute primary electronic evidence of the speeches. Moreover, in the case at hand, the CDs supplied to the petitioner were copies of the record maintained in the Election Commission and annexures P/19 to P/25 are in fact the copies prepared from the copies supplied to the petitioner by the Election Commission. Thus, in order to ensure the source and authenticity of the electronic record, a contemporaneous certificate issued at the time of each transfer, in terms of section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, would be required because the Supreme Court has specifically held that in the case of CD, VCD, chip etc, the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the documents, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.

13. In aforesaid view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by indulging in the exercise of summoning the Returning Officer along with CDs/DVDs of annexures-P/19 to P/25 maintained by the Election Commission because even those CDs/DVDs would be inadmissible.

14. Coming to the second prayer regarding the Compact Discs sent to the Returning Officer along with complaint dated 19-11-2013, it may be noted that there is no pleading in the election petition as to who prepared the video recording of the flex hoarding displayed near State Bank of India and in what manner, using which instrument. However, by means of I.A.No.14043/2015, which would be considered in latter part of this order, the certificate on affidavit issued by one Santosh S/o Ram Narayan Agrawal is sought to be filed, stating that he had video-graphed the flex hoarding using his mobile phone. He transferred the video into his computer and prepared the Compact Disc furnished to the Returning Officer along with the complaint. However, it may be noted that aforesaid certificate is dated 21-10-2015; whereas the CD was prepared before 19-11-2013. Thus, the certificate now sought to be filed was not "obtained at the time of taking the electronic document" and is valueless for purpose of ensuring the source and authenticity of the contents of the Compact Disc. Thus, the second part of prayer can also not be allowed.

8. Reverting back to the facts of the case, we may note that the petitioner proposes to file five compact discs purportedly issued as certified copies of the record of the speeches made by respondent no.1 and maintained by the Returning Officer. In support of these compact disc, three certificates under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act have been filed. These may be found at page Nos 1, 3 and 436 of the documents proposed to be filed along with I.A.No.15554/2016.

9. Certificates at page No.1 and 3 do not bear any date. They are issued by the Proprietor of Abhishek Digital Colour Lab, Sidhi. The certificate at page no. 436 has been issued by Returning Officer of the concerned Vidhan Sabha Constituency. It is dated 16.9.2016.

10. As noted about, it has been held by this Court in the case of Kamal Patel (supra) that in order to ensure the source and authenticity of electronic record, a contemporaneously issued certificate is necessary. In the instant case, the videography was purportedly done by Abhishek Digital Colour Lab, Sidhi, by using viedo-cameras. Thus, the original electronic record was the memory card of the concerned video-camera. From the memory card, the electronic record must have been transferred to a computer and from the computer to the official compact disc maintained in the office of the Returning Officer. Thus, even the compact disc maintained in the office of Returning Officer was secondary evidence. From that compact disc, the certified copies of the compact disc must have been prepared and these certified copies have now been filed along with certificates as stated above.

11. Certificates at page Nos. 1 and 3 bear no date. They were filed in the Court on 18-11-2016. Thus, it cannot be said that they were issued contemporaneously at the time of transfer of record from memory card to the official compact disc. These subsequently procured certificates clearly constitute an attempt on the part of the petitioner to fill up the gaps in electronic evidence. The certificate issued by the returning officer only cover the second part of the transfer of electronic evidence, i.e., from official compact discs to the certified copies.

12. In aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that the certificates filed by the petitioners by way of additional documents fulfill the requirements of section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act. As such, the compact discs and certificates under section 65-B (4) filed therewith cannot be permitted to be taken on record. The admissibility of remaining documents in evidence shall be considered when they are tendered in evidence.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sharadendu Tiwari vs Ajay Arjun Singh on 17 January, 2017

Print Page

When resolution passed by assembly is liable to be set aside on ground of violation of principle of natural justice?

We now deal with the submissions of the petitioners that
the impugned proceedings are violative of the fundamental
right of the petitioners under Article 14. According to the
petitioners, the said proceedings have been taken in violation
of the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that the
scope of judicial review in matters relating to action taken
against members by the legislative bodies is limited.
However, it is likewise well settled that the non-compliance
with the principles of natural justice is one of the limited
grounds on which judicial review could be undertaken against
the internal proceedings of the legislative bodies in appropriate
cases.
 The petitioners’ case, though not elegantly pleaded, is that
they have not been granted the opportunity to watch the video
recording or comment on the content and authenticity of the
video. In the questions of law raised in the writ petition, the
petitioners raised the question of “Whether denial of the right
to comment on the video material would amount to breach of
natural justice?” In the grounds taken by the petitioners, they
pray for the writ to be allowed “because on the question of
authenticity of videography and as to how far it can be pressed
into service, further, the respondents never gave a copy of the
alleged videography to the petitioner”.
 The minutes of the Privileges Committee meeting clearly
show that the video-recording played an important role in
arriving at the conclusions that the Privileges Committee did.
The video recording was specifically shown to the members of
the Privileges Committee “since some of them would have
forgot only the video recordings were shown again”15. Giving
some allowance for bad translation - the said sentence only
indicates that the Committee was not willing to rely solely on
the memory of the members of the Committee. At the risk of
repetition, we reiterate that the video recording served as the
common factual platform for all the members of the
Privileges Committee, from where the members discussed the
actions of the six petitioners, and recommended action against
them.
Even at Para 70 of the counter affidavit, the respondents assert that as the incident on 19.2.2015 happened
inside the assembly chamber, the speaker and other present members were eye-witnesses to the incident,
and that the nature of the incident was known to all members in the house, including the members of the
privileges committee.

39. This Court in Raja Ram Pal case, while dealing with the
question of the rules of natural justice in the context of
proceedings in the legislative bodies, held as follows:
“As already noted the scope of judicial review in these matters is restricted
and limited. Regarding non-grant of reasonable opportunity, we reiterate
what was recently held in Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana that the
principles of natural justice are not immutable but are flexible; they cannot
be cast in a rigid mould and put in a straitjacket and the compliance
therewith has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each
case.”16
40. In Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 11 SCC 1,
this Court discussed the scope of the principles of natural
justice in the context of the proceedings in the legislature
(action under Xth Schedule of the Constitution) and held thus:
“Undoubtedly, the proceedings before the Speaker which is also a tribunal
albeit of a different nature have to be conducted in a fair manner and by
complying with the principles of natural justice. However, the principles
of natural justice cannot be placed in a straitjacket. These are flexible
rules. Their applicability is determined on the facts of each case…”17
41. The principles of natural justice require that the
petitioners ought to have been granted an opportunity to see
the video recording. Perhaps they might have had an
opportunity to explain why the video recording does not
contain any evidence/material for recommending action
16 Extracted portion is a part of Paragraph 446 in the judgment.
17 The extracted portion is a part of paragraph 44 in the judgment.

against all or some of them or to explain that the video
recording should have been interpreted differently.
42. The Privileges Committee should have necessarily offered
this opportunity, in order to make the process adopted by it
compliant with the requirements of Article 14. Petitioner No. 1
in his reply letter to the notice issued by the Privileges
Committee seeks permission to give further explanation when
the video recording is provided to him. The Petitioner No. 3 in
his reply letter states that he believes his version of his
conduct will be proven by the video recording. The other
petitioners do not mention the video recording in their reply
letters. However, it is not the petitioners’ burden to request for
a copy of the video recording. It is the legal obligation of the
Privileges Committee to ensure that a copy of the video
recording is supplied to the petitioners in order to satisfy the
requirements of the principles of natural justice The failure
to supply a copy of the video recording or affording an
opportunity to the petitioners to view the video recording relied
upon by the committee in our view clearly resulted in the
violation of the principles of natural justice i.e. a denial of a
reasonable opportunity to meet the case. We, therefore, have

no option but to set aside the impugned resolution dated
31.03.2015 passed in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The same is accordingly set aside.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 455 OF 2015
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others … Petitioners
Versus
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Rep. by its Secretary & Another … Respondents
Dated:February 12, 2016.
Chelameswar, J.
Citation:(2016)6 SCC82

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by Magistrate when CCTV footage and video recordings is produced by police at the time of filing of chargesheet

During the hearing of the case, we noticed that the trial Court had not played the DVR (MO-2) and seen the CCTV footages in the presence of the accused. In this regard we propose to dispel misgivings, if any, in the mind of trial Judges about their power to view such evidences. There will be instances where, by the time the case comes up for trial in one court, the electronic record would have had a natural death for want of proper storage facilities in the Court property room. To obviate these difficulties, we direct that, on a petition filed by the prosecution, the Judicial Magistrate, who receives the electronic record, may himself view it and take a back up, without disturbing the integrity of the source, in a CD or Pendrive or any other gadget, by drawing proceedings. The back up can be kept in safe custody by wrapping it in anti static cover and should be sent to the Sessions Court at the time of committal. The present generation of Magistrates are computer savvy and they only require legal sanction for taking a back up. They can avail the service of an expert to assist them in their endeavour. Recently the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1345/2015 : 2015 (12) Scale 597, has held that CD is a 'document' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, MANU/SC/0277/1975 : (1976) 2 SCC 17, the Supreme Court has held that tape records of speeches are 'documents' as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Judgment has been relied upon in Shamsher Singh Verma's case (cited supra). Therefore, we hold that articles like Memory Card, Hard Disc, CD, Pen-drive, etc., containing relevant data in electronic form are 'documents' as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, albeit, marking them as material objects. After all, nomenclature cannot have the effect of altering the characteristics of an object. The words 'proved' and 'disproved' in section 3 of the Evidence Act have the following common denominator;

"A fact is said to be proved/disproved when, after considering the matters before it............ "

(emphasis supplied)

Without viewing the CCTV footage, how can any Court, "consider the matter before it " to conclude that a fact has been 'proved' or 'disproved' ? That apart, Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states,

"Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court."

(emphasis supplied).

This does not mean that, if a secondary evidence of a document is admitted lawfully, the Court is denuded of the power to inspect it. Such an inference will lead to absurdity. Therefore, we hold that a Court has the power to view CCTV footage and video recordings, be it primary or legally admissible secondary evidence, in the presence of the accused for satisfying itself as to whether the individual seen in the footage is the accused in the dock. The trial Court should also specifically put questions to the accused when he is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about his overt acts appearing in the footage and record his answers.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:      27-1-2016

Coram:  Mr.Justice R.SUDHAKAR

and  Mr.Justice P.N.PRAKASH

Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2015

K. Ramajayam @ Appu Vs.  The Inspector of Police,

Print Page

Whether video recording of court proceeding is permitted?

As regards prayer of Mr. Khosla for video recording of the proceeding, I have permitted such recording as there was no objection from the learned Advocates appearing for the different parties. But I make it clear that the proceedings being recorded today shall not form part of the official records of this Court as there is no Rule of the Court as yet framed permitting video recording of the proceedings before the Court. The recordings would be for the purpose of assistance of this Court, like noting of submissions of the parties in course of hearing and such recording shall not be made available to any of the parties or outsiders unless otherwise directed by this Court, and this Court shall have the power and authority to make necessary editing of the recorded version, removing any part therefrom which this Court considers it necessary to avoid any scandalous or undesirable or irrelevant matter to remain on record.

Calcutta High Court

ANGELO BROTHERS LTD  V THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT,

CALCUTTA on 15 July, 2015

Author: Aniruddha Bose

Print Page