Creating document, clicking picture, or sending email leaves behind more than we realise. Each digital action creates a silent layer that records when it was created, who created it, where it came from, and how it is modified. This hidden trail is called metadata, often described as “data about data”.
Right from communication and compliance to record keeping and decision-making, technology plays a vital role in the corporate environment. Since there is extensive reliance on technology, it creates digital footprints rooted in layers of metadata that control context, authenticity and integrity. Digital footprints have therefore become critical in the corporate world, particularly in investigations, regulatory scrutiny, and commercial litigation.
Corporate Blind Spots : Neglect of Metadata in Indian Corporations
Despite the abundance of digital evidence, it often collapses under scrutiny when metadata is ignored or poorly preserved. Without reliable metadata, digital records lose credibility, exposing companies to serious legal, financial and reputational risks. Yet, many Indian corporations treat metadata as a mere technical formality rather than a necessary legal asset.
The companies produce emails without any access logs; documents are shared without version histories and internal records are produced without providing clarity on chain of custody. By contrast, courts and regulators have begun asking for proof of authenticity, timing, authorship and integrity, questions that cannot be answered without the definite forensic chain of events.
Metadata Loss : A Consequence of System Design not human Error
Indian Courts are not concerned with who clicked the wrong button but are more concerned with whether the organisation's systems could preserve the electronic records. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors [1] ruled that without meeting the requirements under section 65B of IEA, digital evidence cannot be accepted in the court of law.
Whenever there is loss of metadata, it's always the humans who are blamed for- an employee forwarded an email, a file was downloaded in a different format, or a device was replaced. In most cases metadata is not lost due to individual's carelessness but because corporate systems were never designed to preserve it. Metadata is rarely lost by accident; it is lost because corporate digital systems are designed in ways that make such loss inevitable.
The Credibility Gap in Corporate Digital Evidence
Indian Courts have increasingly started rejecting digital documents at face value. The mere production of emails, PDFs, screenshots by the corporations weaken the reliability of the document without providing the metadata and chain of custody. Section 63 of BSA gives the essential requirements that the certificate should have. This certificate should have the details like when, where, how the data was obtained. This is called chain of custody, and it is important to understand who was having documents at a particular period and if there are any gaps, it can be argued that the evidence has been tampered with, making it unreliable[2].
The courts are increasingly examining how a record was created, when it comes into existence, whether it was altered and who had access to it. This approach was emphasized by Supreme Court in 3. It was ruled that requirements of section 65B should be mandatory without which the digital evidence will be unacceptable. In Rakesh Kumar Singla vs. Union of India[4] the learned counsel placed the screenshots of WhatsApp messages, however that was not admissible in the court of law due to lack of certification.
Digital evidence is frequently questioned on three basic points
- Whether it is genuine
- Whether it has been altered
- Whether it was properly obtained
Even small procedural lapses can weaken an otherwise strong case, giving the opposing side enough space to question the reliability of the material.
The implications are not limited to the courts, but they are beyond that. Regulators like SEBI, GST authorities, SFIO rely on digital evidence for internal investigations. Metadata strengthens regulatory data systems by making collected data interoperable, consistent, and usable across formats, while improving its accessibility. It enhances transparency and avoids duplicative reporting by aligning regulatory requirements.
Modern Day Challenges
The absence of metadata is driven less by legal gaps and more by institutional neglect, limited awareness at senior levels, weak managerial commitment, siloed regulatory functioning, and chronic resource constraints. Poor coordination, lack of trained personnel, and ad hoc data practices result in duplicated reporting, fragile data systems, and an underestimation of the compliance burden.
Way Forward
Indian courts and regulators have clearly moved away from presuming the authenticity of digital evidence based on production alone. The continued corporate reliance on electronic records is unsupported by metadata, indicating a serious misreading of Indian evidentiary standards. Under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiyam, 2023 and in proceedings before regulators, the metadata is no longer a fixable error.
What is often safeguarded as a technical restriction is essentially a conscious design failure. Digital systems that do not preserve audit trails, access logs, and version histories are incapable of producing defensible evidence.
It is essential for corporates to treat metadata as a mandatory requirement not an IT convenience. Metadata preservation, system audits, and documented protocols must be fixed at the very initial period. In the end, corporate credibility will rest not on data volume, but on how the data was created and used and metadata will decide which record survives judicial scrutiny.
End Notes
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors, 2014 INSC 600. ↑
Victor Medina (Nov. 11, 2025), The Hidden Costs of ignoring Digital Forensics in Corporate Litigation, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hidden-costs-ignoring-digital-forensics-corporate-victor-medina-u7mfe/. ↑
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Khusanrao Gorantyal, 2020 INSC 414. ↑
Rakesh Kumar Singla v. Union of India, CRM-M No.23220 of 2020 (O&M), decided on 14-01-2021. ↑
The Authors are Shivani Naik, Who Is A Practicing Advocate Based in Goa And Saloni Agarwal Is A Law Student in BVDU Pune
Views Are Personal