Photocopies Of Screenshots Of Social Media Posts On News Websites Cannot Be Treated As Primary Evidence: Madras High Court Acquits BJP’s H. Raja For Remarks Against DMK Leaders
|The bench noted that an uncertified electronic screenshot is inadmissible without a mandatory certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act.
The Madras High Court has held that photocopies of screenshots depicting Facebook and Twitter posts uploaded or recorded on news websites cannot be treated as primary evidence in a criminal prosecution. Overturning the conviction of senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader H. Raja for alleged posts targeting social reformer Periyar (E.V. Ramasamy) and DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, the Court ruled that secondary evidence of digital records, such as printouts or screenshots, is strictly inadmissible without a mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Bench further clarified that observations made by a High Court while dismissing a quash petition under Section 482 of the CrPC are merely tentative and cannot be relied upon by a trial court to assume guilt or bypass the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “Photocopies of screenshots of Facebook and Twitter posts that have been recorded on news websites cannot be treated as primary evidence. Hence, if they have to be proved, adherence to Section 65B is essential”.
“The learned Sessions Judge should have known that insofar as criminal trials are concerned, the evidentiary rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is only in a civil case, the question of balancing of probabilities arises. It is the specific case of the prosecution that it was the accused, who had made the post. Therefore, the burden was on it to substantiate and prove the same. It is unknown in criminal proceedings for a Court to assume the guilt on account of the fact that the accused had not issued a public statement denying the authorship of the post...In addition, the learned Trial Judge seems to have been carried away by the orders passed by this Court in the petitions filed for quashment. The learned Judge had extensively referred to the said order to reject the arguments made by the counsel for defence. Here too, the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated what is the effect of an order passed under Section 482 of CrPC and its role at the time of final disposal”, it noted further.
Senior Advocates N. Anandapadmanabhan and S. Ravi appeared for the appellant and Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The matter arose from twin controversies in 2018 involving social media posts made by the appellant. One post suggested pulling down statues of social reformer Periyar in Tamil Nadu, while another contained derogatory comments targeting DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi. Following complaints lodged in March 2018, police registered FIRs under Sections 153, 504, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The proceedings were eventually consolidated before the Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to elected MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. On December 2, 2024, the Special Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine.
Re-evaluating the trial record, the High Court observed that the prosecution relied on printouts and photocopies of screenshots without producing the original electronic devices or furnishing a mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. Applying the precedent in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others, (2020) 7 SCC 1, the Bench held that certification is a sine qua non for admitting secondary digital evidence.
“Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act demands a certificate from a responsible officer in relation to the operations of the device or its management stating the requirements of Section 65B(4)(a) to (c) have been complied with. Without such certification, the documents cannot be treated as admissible in evidence. Apart from that, the photocopy of a screenshot is a copy of a copy. In other words, it is a secondary evidence of a secondary evidence and therefore, cannot be accepted in evidence. A screenshot of the post is a reproduction of the screen. A news reporting is a reproduction of that screenshot. A photocopy of the news reporting website is yet another a reproduction. Unless and until, the live URLs are produced before the Court, the chain of custody is snapped. It is here that I will look into several cases which have dealt with this issue”, the Bench noted.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction, acquitted the appellant of all charges, cancelled his bail bond, and directed the refund of any fine paid.
Cause Title: H. Raja (ex. MLA) v. The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, CRL A. No. 1635 of 2024
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocates N. Anandapadmanabhan and S. Ravi for M. Ramamoorthi.
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani.