The nature of evidence placed before Indian courts has changed dramatically with the expansion of digital technology. Emails, WhatsApp conversations, CCTV footage, call detail records, GPS data, server logs, social-media posts, cloud documents, photographs, audio recordings and data stored on smartphones have become central to both civil and criminal litigation.

Recognising this transformation, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) has substantially reorganised the law relating to electronic and digital evidence. The BSA came into force on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to its transitional savings provision.

The new legislation does not merely recognise electronic records as admissible evidence. It also expands the statutory concept of primary evidence to accommodate the way digital information is created, duplicated, transmitted and automatically stored.

At the same time, the law retains a specialised admissibility mechanism under Section 63, which is the successor to the familiar Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. What Is Electronic Evidence?

The starting point is the definition of a “document” under Section 2(1)(d) of the BSA.

The provision expressly includes electronic and digital records within the meaning of documents. Its illustrations specifically refer to:

• emails;
• server logs;
• documents stored on computers;
• documents stored on laptops and smartphones;
• messages;
• websites;
• locational evidence; and
• voice-mail messages stored on digital devices.

The BSA therefore moves away from the traditional understanding of a document as something essentially recorded on paper. A digital file can be a document just as a paper document can be.

This is important because the first question in a digital-evidence case is no longer whether an electronic record can in principle be a document. The statute expressly answers that question in the affirmative.

2. Section 61: Electronic Records Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because They Are Electronic

Section 61 of the BSA provides that an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is an electronic or digital record.

It further provides that, subject to Section 63, such a record has the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other documents.

This provision establishes an important principle:

Digital form, by itself, is not a ground for exclusion.

For example, a contract stored electronically is not inferior merely because it was never printed. Similarly, an email does not cease to be a document because it exists in a digital mailbox rather than on paper.

However, Section 61 does not mean that every screenshot, forwarded message or downloaded file automatically becomes admissible. The statutory requirements governing proof and admissibility continue to apply. That is where Sections 62 and 63 become critical.

3. Section 62: Special Provision for Electronic Records

Section 62 contains a concise but important rule:

The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63. Thus, Sections 61, 62 and 63 should be read together.

The basic structure is:

Section 61 → Recognises electronic/digital records

Section 62 → Directs how their contents are to be proved

Section 63 → Lays down the admissibility requirements

This statutory architecture is broadly comparable to the earlier framework of Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. Section 57: A Major Development in Primary Electronic Evidence

One of the most significant changes introduced by the BSA is found in Section 57, dealing with primary evidence. The provision retains the general principle that primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. But the BSA adds specific explanations dealing with electronic and digital records.

Explanation 4

Where an electronic or digital record is created or stored, and the storage occurs simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is treated as primary evidence. This is particularly relevant to digital systems in which the same information is automatically stored in multiple locations.

Explanation 5

Where an electronic or digital record is produced from proper custody, the record is treated as primary evidence unless it is disputed. This is an important recognition of the realities of digital storage.

Explanation 6

Where a video recording is simultaneously stored electronically and transmitted, broadcast or transferred to another device, each of the stored recordings is primary evidence. This is particularly relevant to CCTV systems, surveillance systems and video-recording infrastructure.

Explanation 7

Where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource, each automated storage—including temporary files—is treated as primary evidence. These provisions acknowledge something that traditional evidence law could not easily accommodate: digital information may exist simultaneously in several locations without there being a single physical “original.”

5. Primary Evidence and the Section 63 Certificate: A Critical Distinction

A practical issue for lawyers is whether the expanded definition of primary electronic evidence under Section 57 eliminates the requirement of a certificate under Section 63. The answer should be approached carefully. Section 57 defines and expands the concept of primary evidence. Section 63 separately governs the admissibility of specified computer output and prescribes conditions and certification requirements. Therefore, lawyers should not assume that merely describing an electronic record as “primary evidence” automatically resolves every admissibility objection.

The Supreme Court's established jurisprudence under the old Section 65B framework remains highly relevant to understanding the evidentiary discipline surrounding electronic records, while the courts continue to interpret the corresponding provisions of the BSA.

6. Section 63: The Core Provision on Admissibility

Section 63 is the principal statutory provision governing the admissibility of electronic records. It provides that information contained in an electronic record which is printed, stored, recorded or copied in electronic form and produced by a computer or communication device may be treated as a document and admitted in evidence if the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The provision is therefore concerned with what the statute calls “computer output.” The important point is that electronic evidence is not admissible simply because someone produces a printout or digital copy. The statutory conditions concerning the manner in which the information was generated and maintained must also be addressed.

7. The Four Conditions Under Section 63(2)

Section 63(2) lays down four important conditions.

First condition: Regular use of the computer or device

The computer or communication device must have been used regularly during the relevant period to create, store or process information for an activity regularly carried on by the person having lawful control over its use. In simple terms, the device or system should form part of a regular information-processing activity.

Second condition: Information regularly fed into the system

Information of the type contained in the electronic record—or information from which the record is derived—must have been regularly fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the relevant activities.

This requirement seeks to establish that the record is generated as part of an ordinary system rather than being created artificially for litigation.

Third condition: Proper functioning

The computer or communication device must have been operating properly during the material period. If it was not operating properly or was temporarily out of operation, the malfunction should not have affected the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents.

Fourth condition: Reproduction or derivation

The information contained in the electronic record must reproduce or be derived from information fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of those activities. These four requirements are expressly incorporated into Section 63.

8. The Law Recognises Complex Digital Systems

Modern evidence rarely comes from a single standalone computer.

Information may be generated through:

• a computer;
• a smartphone;
• a server;
• a cloud system;
• a computer network;
• a data centre;
• an intermediary's system;
• multiple devices operating sequentially; or
• several interconnected digital resources.

Section 63(3) specifically addresses this reality.

Where the function of creating, storing or processing information is performed through one or more computers or communication devices, the devices may be treated as constituting a single computer or communication device for the purposes of the provision.

The provision expressly includes standalone systems, computer systems, networks, computer resources providing information processing and storage, and systems operating through an intermediary.

This is particularly significant in cases involving cloud storage, telecom systems, online platforms and large corporate databases.

9. The Electronic Evidence Certificate Under Section 63(4)

One of the most important practical requirements is contained in Section 63(4). Where a statement is sought to be admitted in evidence under Section 63, a certificate must be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is submitted for admission.

The certificate must, among other things:

1.  identify the electronic record;

2.  describe the manner in which it was produced;

3.  provide appropriate particulars of the device involved; and

4.  address the conditions specified in Section 63(2).

The certificate is to be signed by the person in charge of the relevant computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities, as appropriate, and an expert.

This is a major practical point for advocates.

A lawyer preparing an electronic-evidence application should not wait until final arguments to consider certification. The evidentiary foundation should ideally be established at the time the electronic material is collected and prepared for production.

10. The Certificate Is Not Merely a Formality

The certificate performs an important evidentiary function.

Electronic information can potentially be:

• altered;
• deleted;
• copied;
• manipulated;
• extracted incorrectly;
• presented without metadata;
• taken out of context; or
• generated through an unidentified device.

The certification requirement seeks to establish the technological and procedural foundation through which the electronic record has been produced. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence under Section 65B of the old Evidence Act treated the certificate requirement as a significant condition for admissibility of electronic evidence. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Court reaffirmed the mandatory character of the certificate requirement under Section 65B(4). The corresponding provision under the BSA is Section 63.

11. What Happens If the Certificate Is Not Produced?

This is one of the most frequently encountered problems in electronic-evidence litigation. Under the earlier Section 65B jurisprudence, the Supreme Court distinguished between the existence of the original electronic device and the production of a computer output.

Where a party seeks to rely on a computer output through the statutory mechanism, compliance with the certification requirement becomes central.

The practical lesson for lawyers is straightforward:

Do not treat the certificate as an afterthought.

If a case depends upon:

• CCTV footage,
• WhatsApp chats,
• emails,
• call detail records,
• electronic accounting records,
• GPS information,
• server logs,
• digital photographs or
• audio/video files,

the lawyer should consider the certification and authentication requirements before filing the evidence.

12. WhatsApp Messages and Screenshots

WhatsApp conversations have become common evidence in matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes, criminal investigations and civil litigation.

But a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation and the original digital record are not necessarily the same evidentiary object. A screenshot may establish what appears on the screen, but questions may arise regarding:

• who operated the account;
• whether the number belonged to the alleged sender;
• whether the message was altered;
• whether messages were deleted;
• whether the screenshot represents the entire conversation;
• whether the device from which it was extracted is genuine;
• whether the date and time are reliable; and
• whether the account was compromised.

Therefore, the stronger evidentiary approach is generally to preserve the original device or digital source where possible and establish the chain through which the electronic material was extracted and produced. The BSA expressly recognises messages as examples of electronic records that qualify as documents.

13. CCTV Footage

CCTV footage is another important category of electronic evidence. The BSA's treatment of video recordings under Section 57 is particularly relevant because the statute expressly recognises circumstances in which a video recording is simultaneously stored and transmitted or transferred, treating each stored recording as primary evidence.

However, admissibility and evidentiary weight remain distinct questions.

A court may ask:

• Who installed the CCTV system?
• Where was the camera located?
• Was the camera functioning properly?
• Was the date and time correctly configured?
• Who controlled the recording system?
• How was the footage extracted?
• Was the original storage device preserved?
• Was the footage edited or compressed?
• Who maintained custody of the recording?
• Does the footage accurately depict the relevant event?

Thus, authentication and integrity remain central even when the statute recognises the recording as evidence.

14. Call Detail Records

Call Detail Records (CDRs) are frequently relied upon in criminal cases to establish communication between individuals.

They may show:

• calling number;
• receiving number;
• date;
• time;
• duration;
• cell tower information; and
• other technical information.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, decided in 2026, illustrates the continuing importance of electronic evidence in criminal trials. The prosecution case in that matter included call detail records, and the appellant specifically challenged their admissibility on the ground that the certificate contemplated by Section 65B of the old Evidence Act—corresponding to Section 63 of the BSA—had not been proved.

This demonstrates that electronic evidence is not merely a theoretical issue under the new statute. Its proper proof can directly affect criminal convictions.

15. Video Evidence Does Not Necessarily Require a Transcript

An important recent Supreme Court ruling has clarified an issue relevant to video evidence. The Court observed that a video recording, once admissible, can be viewed and heard by the Court to enable it to draw appropriate inferences. It is not automatically necessary to convert the entire video into a written transcript merely to make its contents admissible.

The Court also noted that a transcript or explanatory statement may become relevant depending upon the facts of the particular case.

This is particularly useful in cases involving:

• CCTV footage;
• police body-camera recordings;
• mobile phone videos;
• sting operations;
• public-event recordings; and
• other audiovisual material.

The electronic record itself can communicate visual and auditory information to the Court.

16. Presumptions Relating to Electronic Evidence

The BSA contains several specific presumptions relating to electronic records. These provisions are important because they recognise that certain categories of digital records may carry evidentiary presumptions under specified circumstances.

Section 85 – Electronic Agreements

The Court shall presume that an electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the electronic or digital signatures of the parties was concluded by affixing those signatures.

Section 86 – Secure Electronic Records and Signatures

In proceedings involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the record has not been altered since the point of time to which the secure status relates.

Similarly, specified presumptions apply to secure electronic signatures.

Section 87 – Electronic Signature Certificates

The Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that information contained in an Electronic Signature Certificate is correct, subject to the qualifications contained in the provision.

Section 90 – Electronic Messages

The Court may presume that an electronic message forwarded through an electronic mail server corresponds with the message as fed into the sender's computer for transmission.

However, the Court shall not presume the identity of the person who actually sent the message. This distinction is extremely important. Authenticity of the electronic message is not necessarily the same thing as proof of the identity of its sender.

17. Electronic Records Five Years Old

Section 93 introduces another specialised presumption. Where an electronic record purporting or proved to be five years old is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume the matters specified in the provision concerning the electronic signature associated with the record.

This provision demonstrates how the BSA has attempted to adapt traditional presumptions concerning old documents to the digital environment.

18. Role of Expert Evidence

Electronic evidence often involves technical questions beyond ordinary judicial knowledge. The BSA recognises expert opinion as relevant evidence. Section 39 deals with opinions of experts, while the statutory framework also interacts with the Information Technology Act, 2000 concerning examination of electronic evidence.

The BSA's Section 63 certificate framework specifically requires the involvement of an expert in the certificate contemplated by Section 63(4). Expert evidence can become particularly important where there is an allegation of:

• manipulation;
• deletion;
• metadata alteration;
• cloning;
• hacking;
• fabrication;
• tampering;
• forensic extraction issues; or
• alteration of digital files.

19. Chain of Custody: The Invisible Backbone of Digital Evidence

Even a perfectly authentic electronic file can become vulnerable if its chain of custody is not established. For digital evidence, chain of custody should ideally establish:

Collection → Preservation → Extraction → Storage → Transfer → Production before Court

For example, if police seize a smartphone, the prosecution should be able to explain:

• when the device was seized;
• from whom it was seized;
• how it was sealed or preserved;
• who handled it;
• how data was extracted;
• what forensic method was used;
• where the extracted data was stored;
• whether a forensic image was created;
• whether the original device remained intact; and
• how the material ultimately produced before the Court corresponds to the seized data.

This becomes especially important when the defence alleges that the electronic record was manipulated after seizure.

20. Hash Values and Digital Integrity

Although a hash value by itself is not a substitute for the statutory requirements of admissibility, forensic hashing is an important tool for demonstrating the integrity of digital evidence. A hash functions as a digital fingerprint of a file. If the file changes, the hash value will ordinarily change. Accordingly, forensic investigators may generate hash values when:

• imaging a hard drive;
• extracting smartphone data;
• preserving CCTV footage;
• copying a server image; or
• collecting digital documents.

The hash value can assist the Court in understanding whether the digital material produced later corresponds with the material originally preserved. For practitioners, the broader point is that technical preservation and legal admissibility should be treated as connected but distinct questions.

21. Metadata: Often More Important Than the Screenshot

Metadata may contain information concerning:

• creation;
• modification;
• access;
• location;
• device;
• author;
• file type; and
• transmission.

A screenshot may not preserve all of this information. Therefore, where the issue is contested, lawyers should consider preserving the original electronic file rather than relying exclusively upon a screenshot or printout. This is particularly important for:

• photographs;
• emails;
• PDF documents;
• word-processing files;
• CCTV footage;
• audio recordings; and
• mobile-phone data.

22. Electronic Evidence and the Burden of Proof

Electronic evidence does not operate in a vacuum. The party relying upon it must still establish the facts required by the applicable evidentiary framework. For example, a WhatsApp message may be authentic as a digital file but the prosecution or plaintiff may still have to prove:

1.  who sent it;

2.  to whom it was sent;

3.  when it was sent;

4.  whether the sender was the person alleged;

5.  whether the content is relevant;

6.  whether it was altered; and

7.  what fact the message actually proves.

Thus, admissibility is only the first stage.

The Court must subsequently determine the probative value of the electronic evidence.

23. Admissibility and Evidentiary Weight Are Different

This distinction is fundamental.

Admissibility

The question is: Can the Court legally receive this material into evidence?

Evidentiary weight

The question is:

Once admitted, how much reliance should the Court place upon it?

A document may be admissible but ultimately unreliable. For instance, a properly produced email may be admitted into evidence, but the Court may still find that it does not establish that the accused personally authored it.

Similarly, CCTV footage may be admissible, but the Court may have to consider whether the camera angle, image quality, timestamp and surrounding evidence reliably establish the identity of the person shown.

24. Electronic Evidence in Criminal Trials

Electronic evidence can be decisive in criminal litigation.

It can establish:

• location;
• communication;
• presence;
• movement;
• financial transactions;
• preparation;
• conspiracy;
• identity;
• sequence of events; and
• conduct before or after an offence.

Examples include:

Mobile location data: may help establish where a person was located.

CDRs: may establish communication between individuals.

CCTV: may establish movement or presence.

WhatsApp chats: may establish communications or agreements.

Banking records: may establish digital financial transactions.

GPS data: may establish movement.

Social media: may establish publication or communication.

Audio/video: may corroborate oral testimony.

But courts must remain cautious because digital information can be manipulated, copied or taken out of context.

25. Electronic Evidence in Civil and Commercial Litigation

The importance of electronic evidence is equally significant in civil litigation.

Commercial disputes may involve:

• emails negotiating contracts;
• electronic invoices;
• WhatsApp business communications;
• digital purchase orders;
• electronic signatures;
• server records;
• accounting software;
• online transactions;
• cloud documents; and
• digital correspondence.

Employment disputes may involve emails, attendance records, access logs and electronic communications. Intellectual-property litigation may involve website archives, social-media posts and digital advertisements. Family disputes may involve messages, photographs, emails, location data and recordings. The BSA's technology-neutral approach therefore affects virtually every category of modern litigation.

26. What Lawyers Should Do Before Producing Electronic Evidence

A practical checklist can help avoid avoidable objections.

Step 1: Identify the original source

Determine whether the evidence originated from:

• smartphone;
• laptop;
• server;
• CCTV system;
• cloud account;
• email server;
• social-media platform;
• telecom provider; or
• another digital system.

Step 2: Preserve the original

Do not unnecessarily manipulate, edit, rename or alter the original file.

Step 3: Preserve the device where possible

If the evidence is stored on a device, preservation of the device may become important where authenticity is disputed.

Step 4: Maintain chain of custody

Record who collected, handled, extracted, stored and transferred the evidence.

Step 5: Obtain forensic extraction where necessary

For contested or technically complex evidence, forensic extraction is preferable to simply taking screenshots.

Step 6: Prepare the Section 63 certificate

Identify the electronic record, device, manner of production and relevant statutory conditions.

Step 7: Involve an appropriate expert

Where required, obtain the expert component contemplated under Section 63(4).

Step 8: Preserve metadata and hash values

Where technically appropriate, preserve metadata and forensic hash values.

Step 9: Establish authorship or attribution

Showing that a message exists is not always enough. Establish who created or transmitted it.

Step 10: Explain relevance

The Court should be shown exactly which fact the electronic record is intended to prove.

27. Common Mistakes in Electronic Evidence

Mistake 1: Relying only on screenshots

A screenshot is often only one layer of the digital evidence.

Mistake 2: Ignoring certification

The Section 63 requirements should be considered before filing.

Mistake 3: Failing to preserve the original

Once the original device or file is lost, authentication may become substantially more difficult.

Mistake 4: Ignoring metadata

Metadata can become crucial when date, time, authorship or modification is disputed.

Mistake 5: Treating the phone number as conclusive proof of identity

Possession or use of a phone number does not automatically prove who authored every message sent from that number.

Mistake 6: Producing edited CCTV footage

Editing, clipping or converting footage without preserving the original can invite serious challenges.

Mistake 7: Confusing admissibility with proof

Getting a document admitted does not automatically prove the facts asserted in it.

28. BSA Compared With the Earlier Section 65B Framework

The BSA retains much of the basic philosophy of the previous electronic-evidence framework but reorganises and expands it.

The BSA's most notable development is its explicit treatment of several forms of electronic records as primary evidence under Section 57.

29. What Has Not Changed: Authenticity Still Matters

The BSA's modern terminology should not create the impression that digital evidence is automatically trustworthy. Technology creates evidentiary opportunities, but it also creates evidentiary risks.

A digital file can be:

• copied perfectly;
• modified invisibly;
• generated automatically;
• manipulated through software;
• stripped of metadata;
• taken out of context; or
• attributed to the wrong person.

The Court therefore remains concerned with the source, integrity, authenticity, reliability and relevance of electronic evidence. The statutory recognition of digital records should be understood as facilitating their admission—not as granting them automatic truth.

30. Transitional Issue: Old Cases and New Cases

The BSA came into force on July 1, 2024. However, Section 170 contains an important saving clause. Where an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal was already pending immediately before the BSA came into force, the matter is to continue under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it stood immediately before commencement.

This is particularly important in litigation where lawyers may otherwise assume that the BSA automatically applies simply because a hearing takes place after July 1, 2024. The procedural history of the case must therefore be examined.

31. The Emerging Judicial Approach

The Supreme Court's recent decisions demonstrate that electronic evidence remains an active area of evidentiary development. In Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, the Court considered call detail records as part of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence and specifically addressed arguments concerning the certificate requirement corresponding to Section 63 of the BSA.

In another recent decision concerning video evidence, the Supreme Court recognised that a properly admissible video may itself be viewed and heard by the Court and that a transcript is not invariably required merely to make the video admissible.

These developments demonstrate that Indian evidence law is gradually adapting from a paper-centric model toward a digital evidence ecosystem.

Conclusion

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 marks a significant evolution in Indian evidence law by placing electronic and digital records firmly within the statutory concept of documentary evidence.

Sections 61, 62 and 63 form the core framework for electronic evidence, while Section 57 significantly expands the concept of primary evidence to account for multiple forms of digital storage and transmission. The Act also introduces specific presumptions concerning electronic agreements, secure electronic records, electronic signatures, electronic messages and older electronic records. The central lesson, however, remains simple:

“A digital record is not automatically reliable merely because it is digital.”

The party relying upon electronic evidence must be prepared to establish its source, authenticity, integrity, manner of production, statutory compliance and relevance. For lawyers, the shift is therefore not merely from paper to pixels. It is a shift from traditional document handling to a more sophisticated model in which digital preservation, forensic integrity, certification and technological authentication have become integral components of evidence law.

The success of the BSA's electronic-evidence framework will ultimately depend on how effectively courts and practitioners balance two competing objectives: embracing technology while protecting the fundamental requirement that evidence placed before a court must be trustworthy.

Share this News