“Notwithstanding Anything Contained in this Adhiniyam” in Section 63(1) of the BSA—Do Indian Courts Fail to Properly Read and Interpret this Non Obstante Clause?

A Debate.

PART I

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

(The View of the Supreme Court of India)

Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908, holds the field on Law on Electronic Evidence. It was rendered on a reference to a three-Judge Bench

History of Reference

The history of reference can be seen from para 2 of the Judgment.

• “2. These Civil Appeals have been referred to a Bench of three honourable Judges of this Court by a Division Bench reference order dated 26.07.2019, dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian  Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) by two judgments of this Court. In the reference order, after quoting from Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 (a three Judge Bench decision of this Court), it was found that a Division Bench judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801 may need reconsideration by a Bench of a larger strength.”

The March of Law

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, two- judge bench decision.

It is held:

• “Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is 26 not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.”

Anvar PV v. PK Basheer, (2014-10 SCC 473), three- judge bench decision.

It is held that the new provisions (Sections 65A & 65B) make a complete code in itself holding as under:

• “Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.”

But finally held:

• “It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence of electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.”

Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, (2015-7 SCC 178), three-bench decision.

It is held, as to make CCTV footage admissible, as under:

• “Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act”.

Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017-8 SCC 570) two- judge bench decision.

It is held:

• “The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency.”

Shafhi Muhammed v. State of HP, (2018-2 SCC 801 ) two- judge bench decision.

Tomaso Bruno (2015) was followed in. It was held as under:

• “(11) The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) [sic-65B(4)] is not always mandatory.
  • (12) Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies.”

Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020) 7 SCC 1, three-judge bench decision.

It substantially followed PV Anwar (2014) with a ‘clarification’.

• Because it is held in Anver PV v. PK Basheer that Section 62, 63 and 65 are not applied for electronic evidence – for 65A & B are ‘complete code’ – the further observation that ‘if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62’ stood incongruent and contradictory. Therefore, it is “clarified” and directed to “read” Anver “without the words – ‘under Section 62 of the Evidence Act’  ”.

It is further found – Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP is per-incurium. It is held as under:

• “What is clear from this judgment is that the judgment of Anvar P.V. (supra) was not referred to at all. In fact, the judgment in State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 was adverted to, which was a judgment specifically overruled by Anvar P.V. (supra). It may also be stated that Section 65B(4) was also not at all adverted to by this judgment. Hence, the declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno (supra), following Navjot Sandhu (supra) that secondary evidence of the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to make CCTV footage admissible, would be in the teeth of Anvar P.V., (supra) and cannot be said to be a correct statement of the law. The said view is accordingly overruled.”

Arjun Panditrao: Findings on Reference

• “72. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
• (a) Anvar P.V. (Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473), as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178), being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad (Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801) and the judgment dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the law correctly and are therefore overruled.
• (b) The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). The last sentence in Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as “…if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act…” is thus clarified; it is to be read without the words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…” With this clarification, the law  stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited.
• (c) The general directions issued in paragraph 62 (supra) shall hereafter be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the appropriate stage. These directions shall apply in all proceedings, till rules and directions under Section 67C of the Information Technology Act and data retention conditions are formulated for compliance by telecom and internet service providers.
• (d) Appropriate rules and directions should be framed in exercise of the Information Technology Act, by exercising powers such as in Section 67C, and also framing suitable rules for the retention of data involved in trial of offences, their segregation, rules of chain of custody, stamping and record maintenance, for the entire duration of trials and appeals, and also in regard to preservation of the meta data to avoid corruption. Likewise, appropriate rules for preservation, retrieval and production of electronic record, should be framed as indicated earlier, after considering the report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice’s Conference in April, 2016.
• These appeals are dismissed with costs of INR One Lakh each to be paid by Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (i.e. the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017) to both Shri Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Shri Vijay Chaudhary.”

Arjun Panditrao: Authoritative Exposition of the Law

The decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, came in the backdrop of the judicial evolution or ‘march of law’ outlined above. It represents the culmination of that line of judicial reasoning and presently constitutes the authoritative exposition of the law governing the proof and admissibility of electronic evidence in India. The decision has been consistently followed and accepted by courts across the country as the binding declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

…

PART II

(The Author’s view on S. 63 BSA is presented, Strictly on First Principles)

Contents in a Nutshell

Question 1. What exactly does the Non Obstante Clause Override – Deeming Provision alone, or the Entire Law relating to Computer Outputs? •• • Is the non obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 63 (“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam”) confined to the statutory deeming provision alone—namely, that a computer output (copy) shall be deemed to be an electronic record (original document) and shall be admissible? •• • Or, does it override the entire law relating to computer outputs, so that a computer output (copy) can be proved only in the manner prescribed by Section 63—namely, by producing the certificate under Section 63(4)—to the exclusion of every other mode of proof recognised by the Adhiniyam as was held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908? •• • Answer •• • The non obstante clause in Section 63(1) overrides (only) the deeming provision (the ‘copy’ shall be DEEMED to be ‘original‘, and it shall be admissible without FURTHER proof, as evidence). Question 2. Is it legitimate to deny the computer output(copy), for the ‘conditions’ cannot be satisfied? •• • “Computer output (copy) shall be deemed to be also a document“, if only the conditions mentioned in Section 63(2) are satisfied. Where, in a given case, the conditions cannot be satisfied, does it follow that such a computer output is incapable of proof? •• • Answer •• • It is reasonable to allow (and the Adhiniyam permits) — the computer output to be proved by any other lawful mode. Question 3. Can Photographs and Videos be Proved with S. 63(4) Certificate? Is Hash Value Certificate Necessary for CCTV footages, CDs & Videos? •• • Answer •• • Sub-section (4) of Section 63 prescribes an enabling mode, using the certificate and Hash Value, for proving the ‘STATEMENTS’ alone, and not photographs, CCTV footages, CDs and videos. •• • The mode of evidence under Section 63(4), by way of certificate, itself is optional — for it is permitted to be invoked only when it is “desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section“.

The Non Obstante Clause is Confined to the Statutory Deeming Provision

The non obstante clause in Section 63(1), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is the following –

• “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam …… the computer output shall be DEEMED to be ALSO a document …… and shall be ADMISSIBLE without FURTHER proof ….. as evidence …..“

Both grammatically and contextually, the non obstante clause is confined to the ‘deeming provision‘ and its consequence only. The following are the ‘deeming provision’ and the ‘consequence’ –

• (i) a computer output (copy) shall be DEEMED to be an (original) document and
• (ii) its consequence—that the computer output (copy) shall be ADMISSIBLE without FURTHER proof ….. as evidence.

“Shall be ADMISSIBLE without FURTHER proof” — Dependent Upon ‘Deeming Clause’

There are several strong contextual and grammatical reasons to say that the second part _{(“the computer output shall be deemed to be also a document…”)} is not an independent provision, but is dependent upon the first part _{(“and shall be admissible without further proof…”).}

They are as follows:

1. The conjunction “and” and the expression “without FURTHER proof“ affirm the relation.

• The non obstante clause introduces one integrated statutory mechanism. Read as a whole, Section 63(1) confers a single evidentiary benefit: the computer output is first treated as though it were the original electronic record, and, because it is so treated, it becomes admissible without FURTHER proof.
• If detached from the deeming provision, the words “without FURTHER proof“ become contextually incomplete and lose their statutory foundation.

2. The adjective “FURTHER” presupposes antecedent proof.

• The expression “without FURTHER proof“ necessarily assumes that some proof has already been supplied. What is that proof? It is the statutory proof created by the legal fiction. Once the computer output is deemed to be the document itself, no further proof of the original electronic record is required.

3. The rider, “if the CONDITIONS mentioned in this section are satisfied” stands attached to the deeming clause — “and shall be deemed to be ALSO a document”.

• Had it been intended that the admissibility clause — _{“shall be admissible … without further proof …. of the original”} — in the second limb should operate independently, the ‘conditional clause‘ would have been linked to that limb alone; on the contrary, the two limbs are joined together with the words “and shall be” _{(repeating the words shall be)}.

4. The admissibility clause is the legal consequence of the deeming fiction.

• In the words (‘predicates’) “…shall be deemed to be also a document” and “shall be admissible without further proof“, grammatically, share a single ‘subject’ — “the computer output.” It indicates that the admissibility is not an independent rule.
• Note: The admissibility provision is not enacted as a separate sentence, such as: “It shall also be admissible without further proof.”

5. The statutory sequence is significant, and it affirms — ‘admissibility’ is not an independent rule.

• This subsection first elevates the computer output to the status of a document (original) by providing that it “shall be deemed” to be original (document). Only thereafter does it declare that it “shall be admissible without further proof.” The latter is thus the legal consequence of the former.

S.  63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reads as under:

• “63. Admissibility of electronic records.   (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be ALSO a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without FURTHER proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.”

Proof Invoking the Deeming Provision in S. 63 is only an Optional Mode

As shown above, the non obstante clause is confined to the statutory deeming provision (shall be deemed to be also a document if the conditions in sub-section (2) are satisfied). Consequently, resorting to that deeming fiction will be optional. It will not be mandatory. A party may therefore prove a computer output either by invoking Section 63 or by any other legally recognised mode of proof under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

• Note: Section 63(2) prescribes the conditions under which Section 63(1) operates. Thus, Section 63(1) has a direct nexus with sub-section (2). Such a nexus is not with sub-section (4), which deals with ‘statement’ and ‘Certificate’.

Proof by Certificate u/S. 63(4) is (Independent and Optional) Enabling Mode

The certificate contemplated by Section 63(4) is an enabling (optional) mode of proof; that too for proving a STATEMENT alone. It is not the exclusive mode. Section 63(4) does not control Section 63(1) and 63(2). To that extent, it is independent. Sub section (4) of Section 63 begins as under:

• “(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a STATEMENT in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any (?) of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record (computer output?) at each instance…“

S. 63 Deals with Admissibility; Not Truth of Contents

S. 63 Deals with admissibility of ‘computer output’ (copy), and it does not affect the truth of the contents of the original.

• Read Article : Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act

S. 63 Does Not Override Every Other Provision of the Adhiniyam

For the above, Section 63(1) cannot be construed as a provision that overrides every other provision of the Adhiniyam relating to the proof and admissibility of electronic evidence (including Sections 58 and 60 dealing with secondary evidence), as was held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908.

Other Provisions that deal with the Proof of ‘Computer Output’

Other provisions of the Adhiniyam that deal with the proof of ‘computer output’ (if Section 63 is not in the Act) are the following –

• First, Section 58: Secondary evidence: Secondary evidence includes—
  (i)….
  (ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves
  ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies ……
• Second Section 60: Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given: Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases, namely: —
  (a) ….
  (b) ….
  (c) ….
  (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable……

When Section 58 or Section 60 is invoked, it may become necessary (particularly when it is objected to or questioned) to give evidence as to the fact that (i) the copy is made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy and (ii) the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable.

Section 63 does not Constitute an Exhaustive Code.

A computer output can be proved under Section 63, only if the conditions prescribed in Section 63(1), read with Section 63(2), are satisfied. In such a case, the statutory deeming fiction is attracted, and the computer output (being a copy) is deemed to be an electronic record (original document) and is admissible without further proof or production of the original.

If the strict interpretation adopted in Arjun Panditrao is accepted, then whenever the conditions prescribed by Section 63 cannot be satisfied—or are impossible to satisfy—the computer output would become incapable of being received in evidence. Such a consequence is both harsh and illogical. The inability to invoke the statutory deeming fiction should not render an otherwise relevant and reliable computer output inadmissible or incapable of proof.

On the contrary, if the non obstante clause is confined to the statutory deeming provision, Section 63 merely provides a special statutory mode of proof. Where its conditions are not satisfied, a party remains free to prove the computer output by any other lawful mode of proof recognised under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Accordingly –

• Section 63 does not constitute an exhaustive code governing the proof of computer outputs or electronic evidence. It merely provides one statutory method of proof by conferring the benefit of a legal fiction upon a computer output that satisfies the requirements of the section.

CCTV footages, CDs & Trap Videos: Cannot be Proved with a Certificate

Following are the conditions for admissibility of a computer output under Section 63(2)—

• (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device; 
• (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;
• (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
• (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.

Copied Item	Section	Why not attracted
CCTV Footage	63(2)(a)	The device is NOT used regularly … for … any activity regularly carried on …. by (any) person having lawful control.
Photograph, Trap-Video or CDs of speech Videograph of the scene of the crime.	63(2)(b)	NOT regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course.
	63(2)(d)	NOT derived from such information fed in the ordinary course.

Settled Principles Governing Non Obstante Clauses

The following are the settled principles governing non obstante clauses –

• 1. In a non-obstante clause, the court applies a harmonious interpretation giving a restricted meaning, and the purport will be to avoid conflict with other provisions of the Act and the intention of the legislation.
  • See: • Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh, 2022-4 SCC 489 (Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ).
  • Geeta v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 414 ; 2010-13 SCC 678, (G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.),
  • Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala, , (2009) 4 SCC 94.
  • ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd., , (2006) 10 SCC 452,
  • A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu, , (1998) 4 SCC 231,
  • Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, , (1986) 4 SCC 447,
  • Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, , AIR 1952 SC 369,
• 2. A non obstante clause overrides only to the extent of inconsistency. It should not be given a wider operation than the legislative purpose requires. Once Parliament creates a legal fiction, courts must give full effect to it, but not extend it beyond its purpose.
  • See: East End Dwellings Co., Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, (HL) Lord Asquith, J., (1952) A.C. 109; (1951) 2 All.E.R 587.
  • Referred to in:
  • Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank, 2026 KLT(Online) 4261 ; 2026 KHC(Online) 6425 (J.B. Pardiwala, K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.)
  • Nirmiti Developers v. The State Of Maharashtra, AIR 2025 SC 1495 ; 2025 KLT(Online) 1446 (J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan, JJ.)
  • Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 KLT(Online) 2422; 2024-10 SCR 1633 (DY Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.)
  • Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam, 2016-1 Scale 525 ; 2016-1 SCT 803 ; 2016 KHC 6932, (Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
  • Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union, AIR 2005 SC 1555; 2005-3 SCC 224  (N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha, JJ.)

Why the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1)?

Under the ordinary law of evidence, a computer output represents a copy or reproduction of information. Section 63(1) creates a legal fiction by treating such a computer output (copy) as an electronic record (original document) for evidentiary purposes. The legal effect of this deeming provision is twofold:

• 1. The non obstante clause is confined to enabling the statutory deeming fiction to operate notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act, particularly the provisions relating to secondary evidence in Sections 58 and 60.
  • Consequently, a computer output need not satisfy the ordinary requirements applicable to secondary evidence—for example, it need not be a “compared copy” within Section 58, nor is it necessary to establish the conditions prescribed by Section 60 for leading secondary evidence, such as proving that the original is in the possession of the opposite party.
• 2. Although Section 63(1) elevates a computer output (a copy) to the status of an electronic record (original document), the deeming fiction goes no further. It does not override the general law of evidence or dispense with the ordinary requirements governing admissibility, including relevance, authenticity, reliability, and proof.

Section 63(4) – Only One Mode of Proving the Computer Output

The Supreme Court decision in  Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908,  had established a strict interpretation. It laid down — for admitting all categories of computer outputs (copies), “the only means” can be the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).

But, sub-section (4) of Section 63 prescribes evidence by the mode of certificate, only for proving the ‘STATEMENTS’ (and not photographs or videos). This mode itself is optional — for it is permitted to be invoked only when it is “desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section“. Section 63(4) reads as under:

• “(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission ….”

It is plain — Section 63(4) is not the exclusive route for proving all categories of computer outputs, as was held in Arjun Panditrao.

No Hash Certificate is Needed for CCTV footages, CDs & Videos

As shown above, sub-section (4) of Section 63 prescribes an enabling mode, using the certificate and Hash Value, for proving the ‘STATEMENTS’ alone (and not photographs or videos).

S. 61 BSA is to Override Arjun Panditrao

The above interpretation is reinforced by Section 61. If Section 63, actually constituted a complete overriding code governing the admissibility of computer output, there would have been little necessity for Parliament to enact Section 61. The existence of Section 61 indicates that Section 63 performs a narrower function. 

• It is also clear — Section 61 is a provision intended to ensure alternative routes for admitting computer outputs (copies of electronic records), that is, other than through the certificate contemplated under Section 63. It is the harmonious interpretation. If Section 61 is not read as stated above, it becomes redundant.
• Section 61 of the BSA, was not in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 61, Adhiniyam reads as under:
  • “61.  Electronic or digital record.  Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall,  subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.”
  • Note: The words “subject to section 63” connote — if Section 63 is invoked, all requirements and conditions therein must be complied with.

Drastic Legislative Change to  Arjun Panditrao

Section 61, Adhiniyam made a drastic legislative change to the deliberation placed by  Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar. By virtue of Section 61, a computer output (i.e., a copy of an electronic record) is capable of being proved by any mode of proof recognised under the Adhiniyam, and is not restricted to proof solely through the certificate.

• In any event, Section 61 is worded with the definite view that it must be understood as a provision intended to secure alternative routes for admitting computer outputs (copies of electronic records); that is, otherwise than through the certificate contemplated under Section 63(4).

It is time to consider – Whether the Courts in India Failed to Read and Understand: “Notwithstanding Anything Contained in this Adhiniyam”, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Conclusion

The opening words of Section 63(1) of the Adhiniyam —”Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam” do not establish a general overriding code governing electronic evidence, as interprets by the courts in India. These words merely ensure that, notwithstanding anything elsewhere in the Act, the statutory deeming fiction created by Section 63(1)—namely, that a computer output (a copy) shall be deemed to be an electronic record (an original document)—prevails.

Whether the reasoning in Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908, is ultimately found to be correct or requires reconsideration (especially in view of the new provision in Section 61 of the Adhiniyam), is a matter for the Supreme Court. Until it is reconsidered, clarified, or overruled by a Bench of coequal or larger strength, it continues to hold the field and must be faithfully applied by all courts and tribunals in India.

Read Also • Law on Electronic Evidence In India under S. 61 – 63 of the BSA • “Notwithstanding Anything Contained in this Adhiniyam” – The Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1) BSA is Confined to the Deeming Fiction. • Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence? • Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Does Section 61 of the BSA Permit Oral Proof (Overriding Arjun  Panditrao) • Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other  Jurisdictions • Hash Value Certificate – Mandatory or  Directory • Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the  Copy. • Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023 • Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao  Criticised. • Sec. 65B Evidence Act  Simplified • ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B • Sec. 65B,   Evidence Act: Certificate forms • “Nothing  In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision • Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao  Explored. • How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in  Courts?

End Notes

Sections 61, 62, 63 of the BSA deal with electronic or digital evidence. They read as under:

• 61.  Electronic or digital record.  Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall,  subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.
• 62. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record. The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63.
• 63. Admissibility of electronic records.   (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
• (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
  • (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;
  • (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;
  • (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
  • (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.
• (3) Where over any period, the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether—
  • (a) in stand-alone mode; or
  • (b) on a computer system; or
  • (c) on a computer network; or
  • (d) on a computer resource enabling information creation or providing information processing and storage; or
  • (e) through an intermediary,
• all the computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer or communication device; and references in this section to a computer or communication device shall be construed accordingly.
• (4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a STATEMENT in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:—
  • (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
  • (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
  • (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
• and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
• (5) For the purposes of this section,—
  • (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
  • (b) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment or by other electronic means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3).

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here  –  “How to Subscribe  free  “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 –  Civil Procedure Code

• Striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment): Consequence is Drastic; Mere Denial of the Landlord–Tenant Relationship Not Absolve Tenant from the Statutory Obligation to Deposit  Rent
• Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni – Executing Court Executes Decree as it Stands, Without any Modification. It cannot Go Beyond or Vary its  Term
• Channappa v.   Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit  
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)  
• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on  Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the  Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC  1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction  Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil  Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res  Judicata?
• Operation Asha   v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical  Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal  Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No  Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the  Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of  Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the  Suit?
• Does  Registration of a Document give  Notice to the Whole  World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII  CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of  Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of  Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s  Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil  Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res  Judicata
• Constructive Res  Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)  
• Res Judicata and Judicial  Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction  Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former&nb sp;suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable  Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2,  CPC  –  Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree  is Enforceable in  Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific;  Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery  Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and  Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil  Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule  12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful  Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92  CPC
• Mandatory  Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian  Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When  Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine  Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent  Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an  Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in  Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a  Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under  CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a  Decree
• Is it Mandatory to  Set Aside  the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is  Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the  Physical  Possession  of a  Property?
• Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission  Report?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a  Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in  Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian  Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal  Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal  Cases
• Waiver and Promissory  Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive&nbs p;parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian  Law
• Thangam v.   Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are  vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in  Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in  Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree  is Enforceable in  Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making  Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits  Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or  WS
• Fraudulent  or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC  1105.

Principles and Procedure

• Copyright and Copyright Infringement – Indian  Law
• Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by  Incorporation’
• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory  Note?
• Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal  Court?
• When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and   (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil  Case?
• Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu,  2025 INSC 828 – ‘Victim’ Can File an Appeal in a Criminal  Case
• BURDEN of PROOF: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English  Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the  Court’.
• Our Courts  Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of  Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final  Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from  CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal  Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial  Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits  Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements,  etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not  Illegal
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s  Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of  Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the  Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to  Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian  Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific;  Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ  Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham  Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set  Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable  Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice  Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent  Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian  Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of  Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable  Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian  Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act  Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a  Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of  Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or  WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable  Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• Gratuitous Possession – Owner can Reclaim Even Without Knowledge of the  Other
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be  Proved?
• M.V. Ramachandrasa v.   Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of  Landlord
• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non  Habet’
• Section 27,  Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and  Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration –  Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian  Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil  Suits
• Revenue  Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land  matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High  Courts
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on  Title?

Recovery of Possession:  

• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be  Proved?
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier  Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of  Tenants)
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act  Governs
• Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian  Law
• Does  Registration of a Document give  Notice to the Whole  World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian  Law
• 22nd Law Commission   Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery  Suits
• How to Plead Adverse Possession?  Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian  Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of  Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Preemption  is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human  Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in  Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian  Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian  Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain  Untold?
• Grant in Law
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming  Title)
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent  Title
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by  Force
• Ryotwari  System in  Madras

Survey, Revenue Records, Mutation

• Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries; Title Claims are Investigated by Civil Courts, Not by High  Courts
• Revenue  Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land  matters
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Survey Authorities Do Not Decide  TITLE
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements,  etc.?
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on  Boundary; though Not Confer  Title

Adverse Possession

• Dispossession and Knowledge: Essential Requirements of Adverse  Possession
• Adverse Possession: Legal Principles and Classic Cases in the UK and the  US
• Adverse Possession: Should Unobstructed Possession Subsist for 12 Years Immediately Preceding the  Suit?
• Illegal, Mistaken or Fraudulent Registration of Deed, and Subsequent Mutation: No Adverse  Possession
• Adverse Possession: A Concise  Overview
• What is Adverse Possession  in Indian  Law?
• Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (AIR 2024 SC 5374) – Supreme Court Denied the Tenant’s Claim of Adverse  Possession
• Adverse Possession:  How to Plead Adverse Possession?  Adverse Possession: An Evolving  Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High  Courts
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian  Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery  Suits
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian  Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse  Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act  Governs
• Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021, Composite Suit (Cancellation & Recovery) – Substantive Relief Determines Limitation   
• The Laws of ‘Doctrine of Election’ and ‘Doctrine of  Waiver’

Land Laws/  Transfer of Property Act

• Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Deserves Stronger Equity than a Prior Contract  Holder
• Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040  (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom  Proclamation
• Revenue  Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land  matters
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian  Law
• Freehold Property in  Law
• What is Patta or  Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote  Full-Ownership?
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery  Suit
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier  Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of  Tenants)
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent  Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent  Interest
• Rule Against Perpetuity –  Simplified
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of  Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose  Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting  Documents
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a  Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in  Kerala
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in  Kerala
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly  Decided?
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration –  Void
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set  Aside
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP  CERTIFICATE
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of  Water
• Grant in Law
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery  Suits
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove  Title.
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on  Boundary; though Not Confer  Title
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• Property Rights Cannot be Taken Away on Technical Grounds of  Delay:  Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra

Land Reform Laws

• Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore  Governments
• Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land  Board
• Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land  Owners?
• Relevant provisions of  Kerala Land Reforms Act  in a  Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in  Kerala
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery  Suits
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s  Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in  Kerala.
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove  Title.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly  Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in  Kerala
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a  Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and  Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law
• Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.   
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land  Matters
• Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase  Certificates)?

Power of attorney

• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word  ‘Irrevocable’  Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY  Irrevocable
• Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC  130?
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently  Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files  Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be  attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed?  No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary  Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Evidence in Court – General  Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of  Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence  Act
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production (Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala)
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian  Law
• What is Collateral  Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the  Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to  Witnesses
• Proof of Documents  –  Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered  Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial  Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or  Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act,  Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses  Theory
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative  Value
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act

Sec. 65B

• Grammatically and Contextually, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1) BSA is Confined to the Deeming Fiction
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Does Section 61 of the BSA Permit Oral Proof (Overriding Arjun  Panditrao)
• Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other  Jurisdictions
• Hash Value Certificate – Mandatory or  Directory
• Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the  Copy.
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Electronic Evidence under   S. 61, 62, 63 of the  BSA
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao  Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act  Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,   Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing  In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling&nbs p;provision
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao  Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in  Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• ‘Admission’ in Indian  Law
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of  Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on  ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings:  Admissible  Proprio Vigore  Against the  Maker
• Document Exhibited in the Writ Petition as ‘True Copy’ – Can it be Used in a Civil Suit as ‘Admission’?
• Modes of Proof of  Documents
• Proof of  Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a  Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of  Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits  Them?
• Substantive  Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting  
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal  Cases
• Prem Raj v.   Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal  Court’

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal  Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal  Proof?
• Does  Registration of a Document give  Notice to the Whole  World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to  Government?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of  Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of  Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on  ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of  Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of  India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered  Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public  Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of  Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Documents Produced With the Plaint are Treated As ‘Part of The  Plaint’
• What is Collateral  Purpose?
• No Application Needed for  Filing or Admitting  Copy
• Presumptions on Documents  and Truth of  Contents
• Presumptions on  Registered Documents  & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil  Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule  12
• Modes of Proof of  Documents
• Secondary Evidence  of Documents & Objections to Admissibility  – How &  When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents,  under  Sec. 90 Evidence  Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral  Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp  Act
• Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in cancelling  Deeds
• Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable  Deed
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set  Aside
• Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation  of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the  Property
• Substantive  Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting  
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence  Act
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production?
• Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottay
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including  Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs,  Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court  Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses  Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently  Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific  Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is  Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative  Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes  Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary  Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a  Photocopy?
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court  Cases
• Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal  Proof)
• Proof of Documents  –  Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Modes of Proof of  Documents
• ‘Admission’ in Indian  Law
• Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal  Proof?
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on  ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of  Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Presumptions on Documents  and Truth of  Contents
• Presumptions on  Registered Documents  & Truth of Contents
• Secondary Evidence  of Documents & Objections to Admissibility  – How &  When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents,  under  Sec. 90 Evidence  Act

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden  Rule
• Golden  Rule of Interpretation is Misapplied in Several Cases in  India
• Interpretation of  Statutes  – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden  Rule
• Golden  Rule of Interpretation is Not the Application of Plain Meaning of the  Words
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence‘
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree

Contract Act

• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory  Note?
• Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of  Contract
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State  Something
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil  Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable  Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and  Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not  Illegal
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set  Aside
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific  Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and  Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation  Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State  Something

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement  Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein  ?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of  Easements
• Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian  Law
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act,  1882
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent  Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive  Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by  Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a  Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity,  Quasi Easement and Implied  Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed  Alternatively
• Can  Easement of Necessity and  of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the  Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not  Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian  Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect  Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Travancore Grant Deeds, in  Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than)  Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be&nbs p;pleaded?
• What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement  Simplified
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive  Easement
• Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective  Easement?
• Necessary Parties in Suits on  Easement
• Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile  Act”
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of  Water
• Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual  Licences’

Stamp Act & Registration

• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has  Title
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is  Illegal
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling  Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before  Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of  Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of  India
• Does  Registration of a Document give  Notice to the Whole  World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to  Government?
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED  DOCUMENTS  
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp  Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral  Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific  Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is  Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently  Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• What is Torrens  System

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

• Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
• Arjun Dass v. The State of AP: Natural Justice Violation in Removal of  Mathadhipati
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice  Revisited

• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs of a Club or  Society
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful  Acts
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ  Petitions?
• Civil Rights & Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Sec. 9  CPC
• Court Interference in Election Process of Societies and  Clubs

Divorce/Marriage

• Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long  Spell
• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in  India
• Is  ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a  Valid Ground for Divorce in  India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian  Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Partnership Firm Need Not be an Accused in S. 138 NI Act  Complaint
• Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha (2026 INSC 547, May 26, 2026.): Cheque Bounce (NI Act) Cases: No Deemed Liability to the Directors of a Company or Society; The Complaint Must Disclose Factual  Basis
• Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI  Act
• An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI  Act
• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a  Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable  Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI  Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act  Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or  Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in  Law
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a  Magistrate?

Criminal

• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cognizable  offences
• Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Commission of Cognizable Offence, On the Face of it, Merit Police Investigation
• ‘Prima Facie Case’ in Criminal  Cases

Arbitration

• Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique  Flame
• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian  Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration  Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration  Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be  Invoked?

Will

• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a  Will
• Executors of Will – Duties & their  Removal
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose  Benefit
• Will – Probate and Letters of  Administration
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid  Will
• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the  Will
• How to Prove a Will, in Court? Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered  Will?
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
• 30 Years Old Documents- No ‘Absolute’ Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence  Act
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be  Proved?
• Presumption on Registered Documents & Truth of  Contents
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of  Contents
• Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy: Deprivation of Natural Heirs Not Amount to Suspicious Circumstance; A Will is not Required to be Proved with Mathematical Accuracy; Unregistered Will is  Valid.

Book No.  2:  A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and  Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an  Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending  Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal  Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court  Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at  50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent  Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a  Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian  Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of  India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the  Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its  Head

Religious issues

• Sabarimala Review: Supreme Court to Decide the Contours of Constitutional  Morality
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian  Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian  Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of  India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge  Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee  Case
• Ayodhya  Disputes:  M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No.  3:  Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General  Features
  • Bye Laws  Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of  Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and  Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and  Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and  Companies
  • Members of a Charitable Society which Runs a College are Tractable to Prevention of Corruption  Act
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
  • Lifting Corporate Veil of Companies and Subsidiary  Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and  Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and  Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and  Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing  Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An  Overview
  • How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes  Necessary?
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and  Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election  Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies &  Clubs

Book No.  4:  Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • Classification of Trusts
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Public & Private Trusts in  India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual  Ownership
  • Trusts and Trust  Deeds
  • Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab, 2024-2 SCR  847
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public  Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in  Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • What is Munambam Wakf Land Issue? If there is No Permanent Dedication, there will be No  Wakf.
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust  Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public  Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the  Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • A Trust Cannot Be Made as a Party  to a  Litigation
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92  CPC
  • Operation Asha   v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92, CPC – Critical  Appreciation
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Law on Hindu Religious  Endowments
  • Philosophy of  Idol  Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual  Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of  Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques  –  General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian  Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian  Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of  India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
  • Striking Down Legislation Relating to a Trust as Violative of  Article 14 and  300A
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya  Disputes:  M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge  Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee  Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An  Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts &  Institutions