Electronic communications now document much of modern commercial and personal life. Contracts are negotiated through email, payments are confirmed through mobile applications, instructions are conveyed through WhatsApp, meetings take place by video conference, and disputes frequently emerge from conversations preserved only on phones, computers or cloud-based platforms.
It is therefore unsurprising that electronic evidence has become increasingly important in Pakistani litigation. Emails, social-media communications, computer-generated records, CCTV footage, electronic banking records, call data, digital photographs and messaging-app conversations may all contain highly relevant evidence. Yet the mere existence of such material does not automatically make it legally reliable.
Pakistani courts have adopted a broadly receptive approach towards evidence generated through modern technology. At the same time, the superior courts have repeatedly emphasised that electronic material must be properly identified, authenticated and proved before it can safely be relied upon. A printout may be admissible without being conclusive. A screenshot may be relevant without being authentic. An email may be exhibited without proving that the alleged sender actually wrote or transmitted it.
The developing jurisprudence therefore rests upon an important distinction: electronic evidence is not inadmissible merely because it is electronic, but neither is it self-proving merely because it appears on a screen or has been printed on paper.
The Statutory Framework Governing Electronic Evidence
The principal legal framework is found in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, read together with the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002.
Article 73 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order recognises that an output produced by an automated information system may constitute primary evidence. This is significant because traditional documentary evidence was historically associated with an original paper document bearing handwriting, signatures or physical markings. Electronic records do not always possess such characteristics. A bank’s computer-generated statement, server log, automated attendance record or system-generated transaction history may never have existed as a manually signed paper document.
Articles 46-A and 78-A address the reception and proof of electronic documents, while Article 164 empowers courts to permit evidence that becomes available through modern devices or techniques. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 complements these provisions by recognising electronic forms of documentation and by providing a legal basis for electronic transactions, electronic records and certain forms of electronic authentication.
These provisions collectively prevent courts from excluding reliable evidence merely because it was created, stored or transmitted electronically. They do not, however, eliminate the ordinary evidential requirements of relevance, authenticity, attribution and proof.
Admissibility Is Not the Same as Proof
One of the clearest explanations of this distinction appears in Mst. Rehana Anjum v. Additional Sessions Judge, PLD 2016 Lahore 570.
The Lahore High Court recognised that a printout or other output of an automated information system could be treated as primary evidence under Article 73. Such evidence could not be denied the status of primary evidence merely because it had been produced by an automated system.
The Court nevertheless drew a critical distinction between tendering a document and proving its contents. Merely placing a computer-generated document upon the judicial record did not establish the truth of every fact appearing within it. The witness producing the record was still required to speak to its contents where necessary, and the opposing party was entitled to cross-examine that witness.
This remains one of the most useful principles in Pakistani electronic-evidence law. The court may permit an electronic document to be produced and marked as an exhibit, but the evidential weight of that document will depend upon whether the producing party can explain:
- Who generated the record;
- Which system or device produced it;
- Whether the system was operating normally;
- How the record was obtained;
- Whether it has remained complete and unaltered;
- Who had access to the relevant account or device;
- Whether the record can reliably be attributed to the person against whom it is relied upon; and
- Whether the opposing party had a fair opportunity to challenge it.
Accordingly, a party cannot ordinarily prove a disputed transaction merely by attaching a screenshot to a pleading. Nor can an investigating authority establish criminal responsibility merely by printing material from a device without proving its source, integrity and connection with the accused.
Emails May Be Primary Evidence, but They Must Be Authenticated
The Islamabad High Court provided particularly practical guidance in Mehmood Alam Sher v. Higher Education Commission, 2022 CLC 1337.
The dispute involved emails exchanged in connection with a scholarship agreement. The Court held that printouts of emails could be admitted as primary evidence under Article 73, subject to the applicable conditions. Once admitted, however, the emails required authentication unless their dispatch or receipt had been admitted by the opposing party.
The Court identified several possible methods of authentication:
- An admission by the opposing party;
- Tracing the IP address associated with the sender;
- A reply from the opposing party;
- Conduct demonstrating receipt or dispatch of the disputed email;
- A read receipt; or
- Testimony from another person who received the same email.
This list is not necessarily exhaustive. Its importance lies in recognising that electronic evidence may be authenticated through surrounding circumstances as well as technical evidence.
For example, where a party denies sending an email but subsequently acted in accordance with its contents, that conduct may support authenticity. Where a recipient replied to the disputed email without questioning its source, the reply may connect the email with the relevant account and conversation. Where several persons received the communication, their testimony may corroborate its transmission.
Conversely, where the sender, recipient and contents are all disputed, a bare printout carrying an email address may be insufficient. Technical evidence, complete email headers, server information, account records or expert analysis may then become necessary.
Denial Activates the Requirement of Formal Proof
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mian Khalid Perviz v. State, 2021 SCMR 522, confirms the broader principle applicable to automated records.
The Supreme Court accepted that documentary evidence recorded through an automated information system was admissible under Article 164. Courts are empowered to receive and use evidence collected through modern technologies. However, where such evidence is denied, it must be proved in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Articles 46-A and 78-A and the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002.
The significance of denial should not be understated. Where both parties acknowledge that an email or electronic record was exchanged, insisting upon elaborate technical proof may serve little purpose. Where the material is specifically denied, however, the producing party must do more than assert that the document “came from the computer”.
A prudent litigant should therefore anticipate denial from the beginning. Digital evidence should be preserved in its original or native form before proceedings are instituted. Waiting until cross-examination to locate the original device, obtain the complete conversation or recover the relevant account information may seriously weaken an otherwise meritorious case.
Unproved Emails Cannot Support Serious Judicial Orders
The Lahore High Court revisited the issue in Nusrat Aftab v. Rabeah Hussain, PLD 2025 Lahore 366.
The trial court had relied upon emails while appointing a receiver in civil proceedings. Appointment of a receiver is an exceptional remedy because it places property or business affairs under the control of a court-appointed person. Such power is therefore exercised cautiously and generally requires persuasive evidence of danger, waste, dissipation or other circumstances demanding immediate protection.
The Lahore High Court held that the emails could not properly be relied upon until they had been proved under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 and Articles 46-A and 78-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.
The judgment demonstrates that electronic material cannot be treated casually merely because the court is considering an interim application rather than conducting a full trial. The more intrusive or consequential the requested order, the greater the need for dependable material.
Screenshots and email printouts may be sufficient to alert the court to a potential issue. They may justify an inquiry, preservation direction or notice to the opposing party. They will not necessarily justify receivership, attachment, criminal liability or another serious determination unless their authenticity and probative value have been established.
Even Documents Downloaded from Official Websites Require Verification
A particularly instructive decision is Akeel Ahmad v. Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission, PLD 2024 Lahore 228.
The petitioner produced an unsigned copy of a judgment said to have been downloaded from the official website of the Lahore High Court. The Court refused to treat it as equivalent to a certified copy.
Although the judgment apparently came from an official website, there was no reliable mechanism before the Court to establish that the pages had actually been downloaded from that website, that they had remained unaltered, or that they were complete and free from errors or omissions. The online copy had not been authenticated by the relevant court office and was subject to legal exceptions.
The decision does not mean that material from an official website is always useless. It means that the purpose for which the document is produced matters. An online judgment may assist legal research or be placed before a court for reference. It cannot automatically replace a certified copy where procedural law requires an authentic judicial record.
This is a valuable warning against assuming that the apparent respectability of an online source eliminates the need for proof. A government logo, institutional email address or official-looking webpage may support authenticity, but it does not invariably establish it.
Unsigned Electronic Communications: A Contextual Question
In Mediline Technology v. Deputy Director of Customs, 2021 PTD 1289, customs authorities relied upon an email allegedly received from a foreign exporter to conclude that an invoice submitted by the importer was not genuine.
The Customs Appellate Tribunal found that the electronic letter was neither signed by an identifiable person nor attested as a true copy in accordance with Article 78-A. The adverse customs order founded upon that email was consequently set aside.
This decision should not be interpreted as creating a universal rule that every email must bear a handwritten or digital signature. Many genuine emails are routinely transmitted without formal digital signatures. The real difficulty was the absence of reliable proof connecting the communication with an identifiable and competent representative of the exporter, despite the email being used to impose fiscal liability and penalties.
The apparent tension between this decision and Mst. Rehana Anjum can therefore be reconciled. A purely automated record may not require a human signature merely to qualify as an automated system output. A disputed human communication, however, may require evidence establishing who sent it, in what capacity it was sent, and whether its contents can be treated as authoritative.
Emails and Social-Media Communications in Family Proceedings
Electronic communications may also be used in family litigation.
In Taimoor Mirza v. Maliha Hussain, 2020 CLC 1029, the Sindh High Court considered the use of email and other digital communications during cross-examination in a custody matter. Although the strict provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order do not apply to Family Court proceedings in the same manner as ordinary civil proceedings, the basic principles governing the recording and testing of evidence remain relevant.
The Court recognised that an email or other digital communication generated by a witness could constitute a previous statement and could be put to that witness during cross-examination, subject to relevance. The Court further observed that an email was a form of documentary evidence and that a party could not be prevented from presenting it merely because its reliability might later be challenged.
This reflects an important distinction between exclusion and evaluation. The possibility that a digital communication has been altered does not always justify preventing its production altogether. The court may receive the material and then determine its reliability after hearing the witness, considering the surrounding conversation and examining any available evidence concerning authenticity.
The judgment also recognised the importance of measures intended to preserve integrity, including digital signatures and encryption. In contemporary practice, other integrity indicators may include metadata, platform-generated export files, full conversational context, forensic imaging and secure preservation of the original device.
Video-Link Evidence Must Follow Procedural Safeguards
Electronic evidence is not confined to electronic documents. It also includes evidence recorded or transmitted through modern communication systems.
In Muhammad Israr v. State, PLD 2021 Peshawar 105, evidence of witnesses residing abroad had been recorded through an IMO video call. The Peshawar High Court found that the statements had not been recorded in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. The convictions were set aside and the matters were remanded so that the witnesses could either appear physically or have their evidence recorded through video link in accordance with the applicable procedure.
The judgment illustrates that technology does not displace due process. Video-link testimony must preserve the essential safeguards associated with courtroom evidence. The court must be satisfied as to the witness’s identity, location, freedom from external coaching, administration of oath, quality of communication, availability for cross-examination and integrity of the recording process.
A technologically convenient procedure cannot be permitted to compromise the accused’s right to a fair trial or the court’s ability to evaluate the witness.
Electronic Evidence and Legal Professional Privilege
Digital evidence may be relevant and technically recoverable while remaining legally protected from disclosure.
In Farooq Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court v. Sub-Inspector Ayaz Khan, PLD 2026 Balochistan 64, the Balochistan High Court considered electronic material transmitted by a client to his lawyer. The Court reaffirmed the confidentiality attaching to communications arising from the lawyer-client relationship.
The privilege was not absolute. It would not protect a lawyer who personally participated in an unlawful purpose, became a vehicle for transmitting illegal material, or concealed facts demonstrating that a crime or fraud had been committed. Nevertheless, merely receiving material from a client, without evidence of the lawyer’s active involvement, did not justify investigative overreach.
The decision is an important reminder that the technical ability to access a communication does not determine whether the communication may lawfully be demanded or used. Electronic discovery and cybercrime investigations remain subject to privilege, confidentiality, statutory authority and constitutional fairness.
Screenshots and WhatsApp Conversations
Although the cited cases frequently concern emails and automated records, the same underlying principles are likely to apply to WhatsApp conversations, SMS messages and social-media communications.
A screenshot may demonstrate what appeared on a particular screen at a particular moment, but it may not independently establish:
- Who controlled the account;
- Whether the displayed name corresponds to the alleged sender;
- Whether messages were deleted before the screenshot was taken;
- Whether the image has been cropped or edited;
- Whether timestamps are accurate;
- Whether the conversation is complete;
- Whether the relevant phone number belonged to the person against whom it is produced; or
- Whether the person controlling the account personally wrote the message.
Accordingly, a screenshot should ordinarily be supported by as many corroborating circumstances as are reasonably available. These may include the original device, the complete conversation, exported chat data, the associated telephone number, account details, replies, voice notes, documents transmitted within the conversation, subsequent conduct and testimony from participants.
A message containing facts known only to the alleged sender may also support attribution. So may a pattern of communication extending over time, particularly where the receiving party acted upon the instructions contained in the messages.
Preserving Electronic Evidence Before Litigation
The strength of digital evidence is often determined before the case is filed. Parties and legal advisers should therefore preserve electronic records promptly and systematically.
The original device should be retained wherever reasonably possible. A phone containing crucial communications should not be reset, sold or unnecessarily repaired. The relevant account should remain accessible, and passwords or recovery credentials should be secured.
Emails should ideally be preserved in their native electronic form together with complete headers, attachments and associated metadata. Printing the visible text alone may discard information concerning routing, servers, dates and account identifiers.
Complete conversations should be retained rather than isolated screenshots. Selectively presenting a single message may create an appearance of manipulation and may deprive the court of the context necessary to interpret it fairly.
Where the evidence is of substantial importance, a forensic image of the device or storage medium may be appropriate. A forensic expert may calculate hash values, document the acquisition process and preserve a verifiable copy without altering the source data.
A clear chain of custody should be maintained. Each person who handled the device, extracted the material or created a copy should be identifiable. Unexplained handling increases the possibility of an allegation that the record was altered.
Relevant service-provider, telecom, banking or server records should be requested promptly where legally available. Third-party records may corroborate the existence, timing or transmission of a disputed communication.
The person producing the evidence should be competent to explain what the material is, how it was obtained and why it should be connected with the relevant individual or transaction.
The Practical Judicial Test
The emerging Pakistani approach may be expressed through five related questions.
- First, is the electronic material relevant to a fact in issue?
- Secondly, does the law permit this type of electronic record to be received as evidence?
- Thirdly, has the record been authenticated as genuine and connected with its alleged source?
- Fourthly, have its contents been proved through a competent witness, admission, technical evidence or reliable surrounding circumstances?
- Fifthly, after considering the possibility of alteration, incompleteness or misattribution, what evidential weight should the court assign to it?
These questions should not be collapsed into one another. An electronic record may pass the first two stages but fail at the third or fourth. It may be properly admitted yet receive little weight. Conversely, a record supported by admissions, replies, metadata and corroborating conduct may become powerful evidence even without elaborate forensic testimony.
Conclusion
Pakistani law does not treat electronic evidence as an inferior species of evidence. Automated records may constitute primary evidence, emails may be exhibited, social-media communications may be used in cross-examination, and courts may receive evidence through modern technological means.
The law nevertheless insists upon evidential discipline. Electronic evidence must be linked to its source. Its integrity should be preserved. Its contents must be proved where disputed. Serious judicial orders should not rest upon anonymous, unverified or selectively reproduced communications.
The governing principle is therefore neither technological suspicion nor technological credulity. It is cautious acceptance. Courts should remain open to reliable digital evidence while remaining alert to the ease with which electronic material may be altered, fabricated, stripped of context or attributed to the wrong person.
For litigants, businesses and investigating authorities, the practical lesson is plain: preserve the original record, retain its context, document its source and prepare to prove authenticity from the outset. A screenshot may begin the evidential inquiry, but it will not always end it.
This article is intended for general information concerning Pakistani law and does not constitute legal advice for any particular dispute. The admissibility and evidential value of electronic material depend upon the nature of the proceedings, the form of the record, the manner in which it was obtained and preserved, and whether its authenticity has been admitted or denied.