Also Read - Kerala High Court Holds Section 50 NDPS Act Compliance Mandatory Even When Accused Produces Contraband During Body Search

The High Court, however, categorically rejected the defense's reliance on Shital Krushna Dhake. The Bench clarified that the 2018 decision was strictly confined to its unique facts and did not grant a blanket waiver of admissibility for internet printouts. Crucially, the court emphasized that any electronic record must strictly comply with the procedural mandate of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Without the required statutory certification, digital downloads cannot be accepted as valid legal evidence.

Turning to the computerized 1951 NRC extract, the Bench delivered a significant clarification based on the landmark case Abdul Mojid @ Mojid Ali v. Union of India. The court explained that the 1951 NRC was compiled under the umbrella of the Census Act, 1948. Because Section 15 of the Census Act expressly bars census records from public inspection and renders them inadmissible in judicial proceedings, an unverified 1951 NRC extract cannot be weaponized to prove domicile or citizenship.

Also Read - Defamation Suit Against Rahul Gandhi: Cross‑Examination of Satyaki Savarkar Continues in Pune MP/MLA Court

The court also exposed critical gaps in the petitioner's reliance on historical voter lists from 1966 onwards. While names like "Pasan Ali" (alleged to be the petitioner's father) appeared in certain fragments, the defense could not show a continuous, unbroken presence of the family unit across the three villages mentioned (Dobakura, Ghugudoba, and Hashdoba). The Bench remarked that the defense's theory of routine family migration between these villages remained a mere pleading on paper, entirely unsupported by any land, tenancy, or administrative records.