INTRODUCTION
In today’s digital era, virtual platforms such as Twitter, now known as X, have developed into a conventional means for the exchange of information, opinions, ideas, and thoughts. Due to their widespread use, tweets are often used in matters such as legal issues or disputes, including defamation, threats, harassment, doxxing, and other criminal matters. It poses an important question; whether tweets can be admissible as evidence or proof in the Indian Court of Law.
Tweets are digital and virtual records, so they can be changed, edited, altered, misused, or deleted, which raises concerns about their credibility or authenticity. The Supreme Court held and clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal,[1] that the admissibility of evidence through an electronic record is permissible only when the essential requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4)[2] are satisfied. Hence, it is essential to analyse whether tweets can be legally admissible as digital evidence in court.
Digital evidence means any data or information that is recorded, preserved, archived and disseminated in digital or virtual form. It involves e-mails, SMS, MMS, WhatsApp messages, instant messages, social media posts and tweets. Due to rapid advancement and growth in the use of technology, such evidence has become exclusively important in legal proceedings. Indian courts heavily rely on such evidence in both criminal and civil matters, establishing its systematic governance as essential. Indian law deems digital data records as admissible evidence, but their admissibility needs to fulfil specific statutory conditions. In this context, Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, plays a pivotal role as it administers and ensures the admissibility of digital records of digital data in courts. Electronic evidence must be supported by a certificate that ensures its credibility and authenticity. Indian Courts have rapidly begun to recognise the significance of digital data records in modern judicial proceedings, especially in matters involving digital communication. However, the risks regarding integrity and authenticity and probability of fabricating the evidence make the application of strict procedural safeguards mandatory.
The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal,[3] upheld and clarified that adherence to Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence in the court. It explicitly held that any electronic evidence must be supported by an appropriate certificate under Section 65B(4), absent which the evidence may be inadmissible in court. This obligation ensures that authentic and valid digital records are presented as evidence in the court. Thus, while digital evidence is widely admissible and recognised under Indian law, it has to fulfil strict requirements for preventing the misuse of provisions and to ensure fairness and justice in judicial litigation.
TWEETS AS DIGITAL EVIDENCE IN INDIAN COURTS
Twitter, now known as X, has evolved as an important medium of digital information and communication in legal proceedings. Tweets, replies, retweets and even direct messages are frequently adduced before the Indian Court as a form of electronic (digital) evidence. These digital or electronic communications can examine and clarify a person’s true intention through their statements, reactions or conduct on digital platforms and can be used in both civil and criminal proceedings. Indian Courts have progressively begun to accept digital data from Twitter or any other social media platforms as probative evidential value, specifically in cases like defamation, misrepresentation and doxxing.
Although Indian law recognises it as important evidence, the admissibility of such data depends widely on its integrity, authenticity and reliability, as tweets can be easily manipulated, misrepresented or posted through spam or fake accounts. This issue was addressed in the Mumbai Magistrate Court Case (2022) – Rash Driving Case,[4] based on a Twitter post, where the Mumbai Police placed its reliance upon the photograph posted on Twitter to substantiate the accusation of rash driving by presenting it as proof. The prosecution adduced the Twitter image as evidence to prove the occurrence of the incident, but the court denied the admissibility of evidence, deeming that the electronic evidence had not been properly verified. Consequently, the accused was declared acquitted by the court due to insufficient authentic evidence. The court clearly highlights that while tweet-based content and other data content may be admitted in court, their admissibility requires strict adherence to evidential requirements, specifically concerning the authenticity and verification of the specific evidence. Hence, the Twitter-driven content may bolster assistance as supporting evidence to claim, but it cannot be declared as ultimate evidence unless its authenticity and validity are evidently established.
CHALLENGES
Although Twitter is used widely as a medium of information, its evidential value is validated and authenticated by several legal and practical challenges. One of the major challenges is the issue of authenticity. Tweets can be misrepresented, tempered, manipulated, edited or fabricated with ease, causing difficulty for the courts to verify if the data of content produced is valid or not. Screenshots of content from Twitter are extremely complicated and problematic, as they can be tampered with, leaving no traces. This issue is closely reflected in Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh,[5] where the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of producing, validating or verifying electronic evidence properly. The court held that non-production of related electronic evidence can result in adverse inference against the prosecution and undermine the case. It further emphasised that such evidence required to be diligently handled and precisely adduced to ensure its authenticity and reliance; this principle is equally applicable to Tweets, which mandates their proper authentication before being adduced in legal proceedings.
Another important challenging factor is attribution. It is usually challenging to prove or examine that a specific tweet was posted by a particular individual, specifically in cases regarding spam and anonymous accounts. Besides, the transitory aspect of data content of Twitter causes problems in its retention, as tweets can be easily tampered with, deleted, edited or modified anytime. These challenges emphasised that even though tweets may be related to the facts of the case, their evidential value relies on strict verification and judicial examination.
ANALYSIS
The growing dependency and reliability on Twitter as a medium of data information express the developing technological revolution of evidence in the modern era. Tweets facilitate instantaneous reporting into incidents, reactions and public expression, ensuring their relevance to the facts of the case. In certain circumstances, such data may provide guidance to courts in examining the actions or intention of individuals, specifically where other modes of evidence are limited and insufficient.
Tweets are considered supporting or supplementary evidence rather than final or conclusive evidence because they may assist the court in establishing initial insight into the facts, but they cannot autonomously determine accountability or culpability. Therefore, they have a supporting role and must be examined along with other credible evidence such as legal documents, witness testimony or accurately verified electronic records. This framework ensures that the court’s decisions are based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant material information.
The approach of analysis is highlighted in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer,[6] where the Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of accurate authentication or verification of electronic records. Hence, tweets may support the examination process of evidence, but their value depends on authentication and corroboration with other reliable and admissible evidence.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Twitter has arisen as an important source of supporting and collaborative electronic evidence in litigation proceedings due to its proficiency to record instantaneous communication and public conduct and expression, but its usage is validated by specific limitations significantly linked to authenticity, validity, verification, attribution, reliability and reliance, which require accurate judicial examination.
The analysis emphasises that while tweets may be related to factual elements of the case, they should majorly be considered as secondary, supporting or supplementary evidence rather than final or conclusive evidence. Courts have smartly pursued a guarded approach to ensure that such electronic data or content is not relied upon and reviewed in isolation but is supported by other authentic and admissible evidence so that unverified and unauthentic evidence cannot undermine the administration of justice.
Thus, while tweets can strengthen the evidentiary value of the case, their probative value eventually depends on necessary verification, corroboration, validity and authenticity. While digital infrastructure continues to develop, it becomes necessary for the judicial system to balance technological development with the principles of impartiality, fairness, accuracy, validity and justice.
Author(s) Name: Akanksha Srivastava (Career Collage of Law)
References:
[1] Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
[2] Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 65B(4)
[3] Arjun Panditrao Khotka (n1) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kusahanrao Goryantal ( MANU/SC/0521/ 2020 (SC) – Digest of case laws ,https://share.google/NihGiJRJ0SgrZZa6z> accessed 12 April 2026
[4] ‘Mumbai Court Acquits Woman In Rash Driving Case AS Cops Fail to Prove Twitter Photo As Electronic Proof’ Outlook India (6 March 2023) <https://www.outlookindia.com/national/mumbai-court-acquits-woman-in-rash-driving-case-as-cops-fail-to-prove-twitter-photo-as-electronic-roof-news-267656> accessed 12 April 2026
[5] Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178
[6] Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473