Supreme Court Rules Illegally Obtained Electronic Evidence Admissible if Tests of Relevancy Met

Supreme Court of India Rules Illegally Obtained Electronic Evidence Admissible if Relevancy Tests Are Met

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that evidence obtained by illegal or improper means, including electronic evidence, remains admissible in criminal proceedings provided that the strict tests of relevancy and admissibility prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. The ruling, delivered in Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana (2026) 7 SCC 784, addresses a persistent tension in Indian criminal procedure between the exclusionary rule and the need to ensure that probative evidence reaches the court.

The Court's position marks a departure from absolute exclusionary doctrines that would bar all illegally obtained evidence regardless of its relevance or probative value. Instead, the bench established a two-stage inquiry: first, whether the evidence meets the tests of relevancy under Sections 3 to 5 of the Evidence Act, and second, whether it satisfies the specific admissibility requirements for electronic evidence contained in Sections 65-A and 65-B of the same statute.

Statutory framework for electronic records

Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act govern the admissibility of electronic records. Section 65-B requires that electronic evidence be accompanied by a certificate signed by a person in charge of the computer system or device from which the evidence originates. This certificate must contain specified details: the computer system's description, the period during which it was used, the steps taken to ensure accuracy, and any other relevant particulars. The certificate establishes the authenticity and reliability of the electronic record before it can be considered by the court.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Naresh Kumar Garg emphasises that compliance with these procedural safeguards remains non-negotiable, even when the evidence was obtained through questionable means. The Court recognised that electronic evidence in the modern criminal justice system often proves crucial to establishing guilt or innocence, and that wholesale exclusion of such evidence based solely on the manner of its collection would hamper the administration of justice.

The judgment does not suggest that the method of obtaining evidence is irrelevant. Rather, the Court appears to have adopted a balancing approach: the illegality or impropriety in the collection process does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible, but it may affect the weight the court assigns to that evidence and may warrant an inquiry into whether the manner of collection violated any constitutional guarantees or statutory protections.

Relevancy as the threshold

Relevancy under the Evidence Act is defined in Sections 3 to 5. Evidence is relevant if it has a direct or indirect bearing on the facts in issue or on matters which, though not in issue, are so connected with them that, according to the law of evidence, they either constitute the same series of facts or prove or disprove those facts. The Court's insistence on strict application of these sections means that even if evidence was obtained improperly, it will be excluded if it has no bearing on the case or if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect.

This framework reflects a pragmatic understanding that relevancy is a threshold that must be crossed before admissibility becomes a meaningful question. Evidence that is irrelevant to the case at hand should not be admitted regardless of how it was obtained. Conversely, evidence that is highly relevant to proving a material fact may be admitted even if its collection involved procedural irregularities, provided the statutory requirements for electronic evidence are met.

Consequences for law enforcement

The ruling has immediate practical consequences for law enforcement agencies and investigating officers. It clarifies that digital evidence recovered through searches, interceptions, or other investigative techniques will not be automatically barred from court merely because the search warrant was defective, the interception lacked proper authorisation, or the device was accessed without explicit consent. What matters is whether the evidence is relevant and whether the formal requirements of Section 65-B have been satisfied.

This approach encourages investigators to focus on the substance of what they find rather than expending effort on procedural perfection at every stage. At the same time, it imposes a responsibility on prosecutors and investigating officers to ensure that when digital evidence is presented in court, all statutory requirements are meticulously followed. A failure to produce the necessary certificate under Section 65-B, or a failure to prove the chain of custody and the accuracy of the computer system, will still result in exclusion of the evidence.

The judgment also reflects the reality that electronic evidence often exists in digital form and cannot be easily recreated or presented in traditional ways. A message, a photograph, a financial transaction record, or a location data point all qualify as electronic records. Excluding such evidence based on how it was obtained would often mean that the only evidence of a crime goes unheard, potentially allowing guilty parties to escape justice on technical grounds.

Constitutional protections remain intact

While the Court has made clear that illegality in obtaining evidence does not automatically trigger exclusion, it has not suggested that constitutional protections are irrelevant. The judgment must be read in the context of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect individuals against self-incrimination and guarantee the right to life and personal liberty. Evidence obtained in violation of these fundamental rights may still be excluded, or the manner of its collection may be considered grounds for excluding it or assigning it minimal weight.

Moreover, the judgment does not override statutory protections. The Indian Telegraph Act, the Information Technology Act, and various state privacy laws impose restrictions on how electronic evidence may be obtained. Violations of these statutes in the collection process do not automatically render the evidence inadmissible under the Naresh Kumar Garg ruling, but they may be relevant to questions of weight, credibility, and whether the manner of collection was so egregious as to render the trial unfair.