A CD copied from a copy: court says each transfer needs its own certificate

A video of an election speech was copied three times. The court said: each copy needs its own certificate—and one filed two years later won't cut it.

A man wanted to prove his opponent's election speech broke the rules. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh would decide his fate based on one question: how had a video travelled from a memory card—smaller than a fingernail, holding the only original recording—to a CD, and who had certified each step?

The case, Kamal Patel v. Ram Kishore Dogne, began with a complaint about campaign speech. It became a technical war over electronic evidence—a single CD, labelled in blue ink and sitting in a sealed envelope, containing recordings of allegedly objectionable words.

When the video changed hands three times

The original footage sat on a video camera's memory card. Someone moved it to a computer. Then the Election Commission burned it onto an official CD. Finally, copies of that CD reached the petitioner, Kamal Patel, who wanted to use them as proof.

Four storage devices. Three transfers. Each transfer, the court noted, created a new copy—one step further from the original recording.

The petitioner argued the CD should be admitted. The respondent, Ram Kishore Dogne, said the chain of custody was broken. The CD was not the original. It was a copy of a copy of a copy.

The legal problem with copies of copies

Indian law treats electronic records differently from paper. Under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (the provision that governs how electronic records are admitted as evidence), a computer-generated document needs a certificate that meets specific requirements.

The certificate must state the computer was working properly when the record was created. It must say the information is a true reproduction of the original. Crucially, the certificate must be obtained at the time the electronic document is created—not months or years later.

In this case, the certificate was dated 21 October 2015. The CD itself had been prepared before 19 November 2013. A gap of nearly two years. The judge read the certificate date aloud—21 October 2015—and paused. The courtroom fell silent.

Why the late certificate failed

The court was blunt. A certificate filed two years after the CD was created was not "obtained at the time of taking the electronic document." It was, in the court's words, "valueless for ensuring authenticity."

But the problem went deeper. Even if the certificate had been timely, it would still have been insufficient—because it only covered one transfer in a chain of multiple transfers.

The record had passed through three stages: memory card to computer, computer to official CD, official CD to the petitioner's copy. At each stage, the electronic record changed hands. At each stage, the risk of tampering increased.

The court held that to ensure authenticity, "a contemporaneous certificate issued at the time of each transfer in terms of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, would be required."

What "contemporaneous" really means

The word did the heavy lifting. It means "at the same time." The certificate must be obtained when the electronic document is created—not when a party decides, years later, that they need to prove something in court.

A certificate created after the fact cannot guarantee the record has not been altered. Only a certificate created at the time of transfer can provide that assurance.

And because the video had been transferred multiple times, each transfer needed its own certificate. A single certificate, even if timely, could not cover the entire chain.

The court's reasoning drew a clear line: the electronic record had passed through a memory card, a computer, and then an official CD. At each stage, the data could have been edited, deleted, or replaced. Without a fresh certificate at each handover, the court had no way to know whether the CD in evidence matched the original recording on the memory card. The file felt thin—not in pages, but in proof.

The verdict: inadmissible

The court found the electronic evidence inadmissible. The CD could not prove the election speech had been made, or that its content was objectionable. The certificate was not contemporaneous. It did not cover each stage of the transfer.

The underlying election dispute continued. But the evidentiary ruling was a significant setback for the petitioner, who had relied on the CD as his primary evidence.

For the respondent, the ruling was a reminder: procedural requirements are not mere technicalities. They ensure evidence is reliable, and courts do not base decisions on records whose authenticity cannot be verified.

The smell of old paper hung in the courtroom as the judge set aside the CD. The evidence was dead on arrival.

What this means for every litigant with a video or a screenshot

The practical takeaway is simple but strict: if you rely on an electronic record as evidence, you must have a certificate obtained at the time the record was created. If the record has been transferred, each transfer needs its own certificate.

This applies to videos, audio recordings, screenshots, emails, WhatsApp messages, and any other electronic document. A certificate filed months or years later will not save your case.

Consider a parallel: a single photograph taken on a phone, then emailed, then saved to a laptop, then printed. Each transfer creates a new electronic record. Each needs its own certificate. The court's logic applies not just to election speeches but to any digital evidence—a contract screenshot, a voice note, a CCTV clip. The chain of custody is everything.

The court's ruling also highlights a deeper principle: electronic evidence is fragile. Unlike a signed paper document, a digital file can be altered without leaving visible traces. The contemporaneous certificate is the only safeguard. Without it, the court cannot trust what it sees on the screen.

THE PLAY: When you create or receive an electronic record you may need as evidence, obtain a Section 65-B(4) certificate immediately—and get a fresh one every time the record is transferred to a new device.

The court ended where it began: with a video copied three times, and a certificate that arrived two years too late. The memory card, the computer, the CD—each step needed proof. None had it.