DIGITAL EVIDENCE AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A CASE COMMENTARY ON ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR v. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL & ORS. (2020) AND IN RE: GUIDLINES FOR DIGITAL DEVICE SEIZURE (FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS / RAMASWAMY VS UNION OF INDIA)

The increasing reliance on electronic records in legal proceedings has raised significant questions concerning their admissibility, authenticity, preservation, and the protection of fundamental rights. This paper examines the evolving legal framework governing digital evidence in India through the Supreme Court’s decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) and the constitutional concerns surrounding the search and seizure of digital devices. The paper analyses the mandatory requirement of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly in relation to secondary electronic evidence, while distinguishing it from primary electronic evidence produced from the original device. It further considers the constitutional implications of indiscriminate seizure and extraction of data from smartphones, laptops, and other personal digital devices, with particular reference to the right to privacy under Article 21, the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), and professional confidentiality, including journalistic and legal privileges. The paper highlights the need for procedural safeguards such as judicial warrants, generation of hash values, proper seizure documentation, preservation of digital evidence, and restrictions on overly broad searches. It argues that an effective digital-evidence regime must balance the legitimate investigative needs of law-enforcement agencies with individual constitutional freedoms. The study concludes that technological advancement in criminal investigation must be accompanied by clear procedural safeguards to ensure both evidentiary reliability and the protection of fundamental rights.