On 19 May 2026, a two-judge bench held that a directed crime-scene re-enactment limited to physical movements does not per se amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3); such material is admissible as corroborative — not substantive — evidence. Conviction restored on circumstantial proof; death sentence commuted to life.
A three-judge Bench in 2014 overruled the looser reading of Section 65B that had governed electronic-evidence admissibility for nine years, and held that a certificate under sub-section (4) is a condition precedent. The reasoning, the overruling of *Navjot Sandhu*, and the question of how the doctrine now travels onto Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Six years after Anvar P.V., the three-judge Bench of Nariman, Bhat and Ramasubramanian JJ. returned to Section 65B — to settle a doctrinal drift that had crept in through *Shafhi Mohammad* and to clarify the certificate framework at the boundaries. A digest of the holding, the relaxation that wasn't, and how the framework now travels onto Section 63 BSA.