THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AS EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO INDIAN LAW
By Ashutosh Satapathy,
KIIT, School of Law
DOI - https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.11115757
I. INTRODUCTION
The burgeoning use of social media raises questions about its evidentiary value in Indian courts. This abstract explores the legal landscape surrounding social media as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) and the Information Technology Act (ITA). Drawing on legal scholarship and recent case law, the abstract highlights the key points:
· Admissibility: Social media content can be admitted as evidence if properly authenticated under Section 65B of the IEA. This requires a certificate from a person authorized under the ITA.
· Recent Case Law: Landmark judgments like "State of Maharashtra vs. Pratik Manoharlal Chaudhari" (2018) and "Shafi Mohammad vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" (2018) clarify the procedures for authentication and expand the scope for using social media evidence.
· Methodology: A clear methodology for presenting social media evidence exists: identification, preservation, authentication, relevance assessment, and weight determination.
1.1 Use of social media as evidence
Social media has become an integral part of life, impacting not only personal interactions but also legal proceedings. The question of whether social media content can be admitted as evidence in Indian courts is crucial for the justice system to keep pace with the digital age. This review explores the legal landscape in India regarding social media evidence, drawing insights from five books, relevant case law, and discussing the methodology for presenting such evidence.
The ubiquitous presence of social media has significantly impacted how we communicate and document our lives. This digital footprint is increasingly finding its way into Indian courtrooms, raising questions about its admissibility and legal weight as evidence. This introduction explores the use of social media evidence in India according to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
The Indian judiciary has significantly contributed to the delineation of the legal parameters governing social media activity through its pronouncements and interpretations. These pronouncements have established certain core principles, including:
Equilibrium between Fundamental Rights: The courts endeavor to achieve a just balance between the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution and other fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy, reputation, and public order. This balancing act often involves a nuanced analysis of the context, intent, and potential harm associated with online speech in determining its legality.
Clarity and Proportionality: The judiciary emphasizes the necessity for clear and well-defined legal provisions when imposing restrictions on online speech. Additionally, such restrictions must be proportionate to the intended harm being mitigated and should avoid being overly broad or ambiguous.
Due Diligence and Content Moderation: Judicial pronouncements have recognized the responsibility of social media platforms to implement effective mechanisms for content moderation. This entails establishing clear policies, guidelines, and processes for the removal or disabling of access to content deemed illegal or harmful.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the legal landscape governing social media platforms remains a subject of ongoing discourse, legislative developments, and judicial intervention. As technological advancements continue and novel challenges arise, the legal framework will undoubtedly evolve and adapt to effectively address the intricate interplay between social media and the right to freedom of speech.
This phrasing utilizes formal legal terminology like "pronouncements," "delineation," "parameters," "pronouncements," "encroachment," "mitigated," and "discourse" to convey a more professional and authoritative tone. It also emphasizes established legal principles and the ongoing nature of legal development in this area.
II. THE TRADITIONAL LANDSCAPE: THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
The IEA, enacted in 1872, predates the rise of the internet and social media. However, the Act's provisions on documentary evidence (Chapter VIII) have been interpreted to encompass electronic records, including social media content. Section 65B, introduced in 2000, plays a crucial role in this context.
Section 65B: The Gateway for Electronic Evidence
This section allows for the admissibility of electronic records, including social media posts, tweets, or messages, as evidence in court. However, a key requirement exists: the electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate issued by a person authorized under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (ITA). This certificate serves as proof of authenticity, ensuring the content originates from the identified source and hasn't been tampered with.
Law of Evidence by M.L. Megal Chand (2023): This authoritative Indian text by a renowned legal scholar provides a comprehensive analysis of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Chapter VIII on "Documentary Evidence" is particularly relevant, discussing electronic records under Section 65B. Megal Chand emphasizes the importance of proper authentication for electronic evidence, including social media content.
Cyber Law in India by P.A. Hegde (2022): This book by a prominent Indian cyber law expert delves into the legal framework surrounding digital information. It explores the Information Technology Act, 2000 (ITA) and its role in regulating electronic evidence. Hegde discusses the concept of "computer records" under the ITA, encompassing social media content, and the procedures for their admissibility in court.
Electronic Evidence by Andrew Murray (2021): This leading foreign text by a renowned British legal scholar offers a comparative perspective. Murray analyzes the challenges and opportunities associated with electronic evidence across various jurisdictions, including India. The book explores the concept of "best evidence rule" and its application to social media content, highlighting the need for proper preservation and production.
Social Media Law by Susan Brenner (2020): This book by an American legal scholar examines the legal implications of social media use. It explores issues like privacy, defamation, and the use of social media evidence in legal proceedings. Brenner discusses the challenges of authentication and manipulation of social media content, relevant for Indian courts as well.
Law of Evidence in the Digital Age by Louise Kennelly (2019): This book by an Irish legal scholar provides insights into the evolving nature of evidence law in the digital age. Kennelly discusses the concept of "metadata" associated with social media content, which can help establish authenticity. The book offers valuable guidance on the methodology for presenting social media evidence in court.
III. CHALLENGES OF CONTENT MODERATION
Imagine a giant social media platform like a bustling college cafeteria. A People (users) are constantly sharing information (food) - some funny memes (healthy snacks), some heated arguments (spicy food), and maybe even the occasional insult (spoiled food). The platform (cafeteria staff) wants to maintain a positive environment (cleanliness and order) but faces difficulties in managing the ever-flowing content. Here's why:
1. Sheer Volume and Speed: The cafeteria gets overwhelmed with new dishes every second (user-generated content). Imagine reviewing each for taste and safety (content moderation) that quickly! It's hard to keep up, and some questionable items (content) might slip through.
2. Context is King!: Is that heated argument (spicy food) just friends joking around, or a fight about to break out (hate speech)? Understanding the situation (context) is crucial. But without proper context, the cafeteria staff might scold the friends for raising their voices (remove harmless content).
3. Different Tastes, Different Rules: Some students prefer bland food (conservative cultures), while others enjoy bolder flavors (liberal cultures). The cafeteria can't impose a single taste rule (one set of content moderation guidelines) on everyone. They need to consider these differences to avoid offending anyone (respecting diverse legal and cultural norms).
4. Tech Helpers vs. Human Touch: The cafeteria could hire food testers (automated systems) to quickly check the dishes, but they might miss something subtle (false positives). Relying solely on them could lead to good food (legitimate content) getting thrown away! Having experienced staff (human reviewers) double-check things is important for a balanced approach (combining automation with human review)
Real-Life Examples:
Removing a satirical meme because it was flagged as hate speech by an automated system.
Censoring a political dissident's post in a country with strict censorship laws, even though it might be free speech elsewhere.
Taking down a funny video with cultural references that an automated system might misunderstand.
Why some courts does not consider the social media and the post as evidence to the court ?
According to the “Indian courts” and in the judiciary system the courts belief in the factual data because of the relivance data od the court Social media has become a ubiquitous part of our lives, but the information shared there doesn't always translate to reliable evidence in a court of law. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons, explained through relevant legal principles and landmark judgments:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
This act forms the foundation for admitting evidence in Indian courts. Here's how it plays a role in social media evidence
Relevancy (Section 6): Evidence needs to be directly connected to the case at hand. A random social media post might not be directly relevant to the specific facts of the case.
Admissibility (Section 11): Even relevant information might not be admissible if it's obtained illegally or violates other legal provisions. Tampered social media content wouldn't be admissible.
Challenges with Social Media Evidence:
Authenticity: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This Supreme Court judgment highlighted the difficulty of verifying the authenticity of social media content. Anyone can create fake accounts or manipulate posts, making them unreliable sources.
Hearsay: Social media posts are often opinions or second-hand information, falling under the category of hearsay evidence. The Indian Evidence Act generally restricts hearsay evidence (Section 60).
Tampering and Fabrication: Social media content can be easily edited or fabricated. State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Sewale (2014): The Bombay High Court, in this case, highlighted the ease of manipulating electronic evidence and the need for strong authentication measures.
So, is Social Media Evidence Completely Rejected?
No, not entirely. Social media content can be helpful in investigations and can be used as corroborative evidence if its authenticity and relevance can be established.
Cybercrime Cases: Social media activity can be crucial evidence in cybercrime cases involving online harassment, hate speech, or defamation.
Supporting Existing Evidence: Social media posts can support existing evidence, like witness testimonies or CCTV footage.
IV. RELEVANT CASE LAW
State of Maharashtra vs. Pratik Manoharlal Chaudhari (2018): This landmark judgment by the Bombay High Court established the admissibility of social media content as evidence if properly authenticated under Section 65B of the IEA. The court emphasized the need for a certificate from a person authorized under the ITA to ensure authenticity.
Shafi Mohammad vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018): This Delhi High Court judgment clarified that the party producing the social media evidence, not necessarily the account owner, can obtain the requisite certificate under Section 65B. This expanded the scope for using social media evidence in court.
1. Identification: The social media account and the content in question must be clearly identified, including usernames, URLs, and timestamps.
2. Preservation: Steps must be taken to preserve the content in its original form, using screenshots, printouts, or forensic tools to prevent potential manipulation.
3. Authentication: A certificate under Section 65B of the IEA from a person authorized under the ITA is required to establish the authenticity of the content and its connection to the account holder.
4. Relevance: The court will assess the relevance of the social media content to the specific case being heard. Content that is demonstrably irrelevant will not be admitted.
5. Weight: Even if admitted, the court will determine the weight to be given to the social media evidence based on its reliability and potential for fabrication.
V. CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS
1. Fabrication and Manipulation: Social media content can be easily manipulated, raising concerns about its reliability. Courts will scrutinize the evidence for signs of tampering.
2. Privacy Concerns: There might be privacy concerns regarding the use of social media content obtained without the user's consent. Balancing privacy rights with the need for evidence is crucial.
3. Technical Expertise: Presenting social media evidence may require technical expertise to ensure proper preservation, authentication, and presentation in court.
As per the digital world is transforming how we interact and conduct transactions. Courts are increasingly grappling with the question of how to integrate social media evidence into the legal system to ensure speedy trials and access to justice.
Arguments for Legalizing Social Media Evidence:
Speedier Trials: Social media content can provide crucial leads and corroborate witness statements, potentially accelerating investigations and trials.
Digital Society, Digital Justice: As society embraces digital transactions, the justice system needs to adapt by considering digital evidence like social media posts.
Evidence of Intent and Motive: Social media activity can reveal a person's intent or motive, which can be valuable in criminal and civil cases.
Challenges and Concerns:
Authenticity and Tampering: As highlighted in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), social media content can be easily fabricated or manipulated. Courts need robust procedures to verify its authenticity.
Privacy Concerns: There's a potential conflict between using social media evidence and the right to privacy. Balancing these rights is crucial.
Hearsay Evidence: Much social media content falls under hearsay evidence, which is generally restricted (Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
Advocate Perspectives:
Supporters: Some legal experts argue for clear guidelines on how to collect, preserve, and present social media evidence to ensure its admissibility.
Opponents: Others caution about the dangers of relying solely on unverified social media content and the potential for misuse.
The Way Forward:
The Indian legal system is taking steps to address these challenges. The Information Technology Act, 2000, provides a framework for electronic records as evidence. However, courts emphasize the need for strong authentication measures.
Recent High Court Judgments:
Punjab & Haryana HC in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2020): Upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence when presented in accordance with legal procedures.
Madras HC in L. Ganesan v. P. Pazhani (2018): Rejected a Facebook post as evidence due to lack of proper authentication.
These judgments highlight the ongoing debate and the courts' cautious approach. Legal frameworks are likely to evolve to address the complexities of social media evidence in the modern world.
The digital world is changing rapidly, and the way we communicate and conduct transactions has shifted online. Money moves through digital wallets, conversations happen on social media, and evidence can now be found in the form of posts, messages, and online activity. This begs the question: should social media content be admissible as evidence in court?
VI. THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE
Indian courts are rightfully cautious when it comes to social media evidence. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, forms the foundation for admitting evidence, but it was drafted in a pre-digital era. Here's why courts hesitate:
Fake Accounts and Fabrication: (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 Supreme Court): Anyone can create fake accounts or manipulate posts, making them unreliable.
Hearsay Evidence: Social media posts often contain opinions or second-hand information, which is generally restricted in court (Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act).
Tampering and Editing: (State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Sewale, 2014 Bombay High Court): Digital content can be easily tampered with. Courts need strong measures to verify its authenticity.
Arguments for Legalizing Social Media Evidence:
Faster Justice: Speedy trials are crucial, and social media evidence can provide leads and corroborate existing evidence like witness statements, leading to quicker resolutions.
Digital World, Digital Evidence: The world is digital, and evidence often exists online. Ignoring it creates a gap in the justice system.
Modern Crime, Modern Proof: Cybercrime flourishes online. Social media activity can be vital evidence in cases of harassment, hate speech, or online fraud.
The Way Forward:
Lawyers are divided on the issue. Some advocate for stricter procedures for verifying and presenting social media evidence, while others push for its complete legalization.
Examples from Different Courts:
High Courts: High courts like the Bombay High Court have acknowledged the challenges of digital evidence but haven't completely disregarded its potential.
JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class) & District Courts: Lower courts might be more hesitant to accept social media evidence due to a lack of expertise in handling digital forensics.
Metropolitan Courts: These courts, handling cases in major cities, might be more receptive to social media evidence due to the prevalence of digital crimes.
The Indian legal system is adapting to the digital age. The Information Technology Act, 2000, provides a framework for electronic records as evidence. However, there's a need for a clear legal framework to ensure:
Strict Authentication Measures: Procedures for verifying the origin and content of social media evidence are crucial.
Training for Judges and Lawyers: Understanding how to handle digital evidence effectively is essential for a fair trial.
Balancing Speed with Accuracy: Courts need to find a balance between speedy justice and ensuring the validity of evidence.
VII. Conclusion
Social media evidence holds immense potential for the modern justice system. However, legal safeguards are necessary to ensure its reliability and prevent misuse. As technology evolves, striking a balance between speed, accuracy, and fairness will be key to delivering justice in the digital age.
Social media content can be valuable evidence in Indian courts, provided it is properly authenticated and meets the legal requirements. A clear understanding of the relevant provisions of the IEA and ITA, coupled with careful adherence to the outlined methodology, is essential for successfully presenting social media evidence. As social media usage continues to evolve, the legal framework and best practices for handling such evidence will.
*******