Site icon LegalOnus

Relevancy and Admissibility of Electronic Records in BSA, 2023

ayush chandra
ChatGPT Image Jun 25, 2025, 11_18_22 AM
Spread the love

This article has been written by Mansa Shrivastva a 2nd-year BALLB student at IILM University, Greater Noida.

Introduction

In the digital era, electronic records are now an inevitable necessity in business, governance, and personal communication. With the development of technologies such as emails, cloud storage, blockchain, and digital signatures, the law has had to adapt to keep pace with the challenges in the authentication and utilization of electronic evidence. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which was the law of admissibility rules for more than a century, had been subjected to numerous amendments to find space for electronic records. Nonetheless, with the promulgation of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a more formal and thorough system now prevails to deal with the legal handling of electronic evidence.

This article delves into the principles of relevancy and admissibility of electronic records under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examines major provisions, and outlines how Indian courts have interpreted them in relation to technological development.

Understanding Relevancy and Admissibility in Evidence Law

Relevancy

The logical relationship between the fact in question and the fact presented in substantiation is known as applicability. The presence of a fact in question is more or less likely when it’s an important fact. According to Chapter II of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the main focus of applicability is a substantiation piece’s supportive value.

Admissibility

On the other hand, admissibility is decided by the law. A fact may not be admissible even if it is pertinent if it does not satisfy certain legal standards, such as being properly authenticated, not hearsay (unless it falls under an exception), and not obtained illegally (subject to the court’s discretion).
This distinction becomes crucial when it comes to electronic documents since their admissibility requires that their trustworthiness, legitimacy, and integrity be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Statutory Framework: Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, has significantly modernized the rules concerning digital evidence. Key provisions related to electronic records are:

According to the Information Technology Act of 2000, the Adhiniyam has defined “electronic record” as any data, image, sound, or record which is created, saved, received, or transmitted in an electronic form, like computer-generated microfiche or microfilm.

The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam’s Sections 61 through 65 establish general guidelines for documentary evidence, with Section 65 particularly addressing the admissibility of electronic information.

Key Elements for Admissibility

Section 65 of the Adhiniyam outlines conditions under which an electronic record shall be considered admissible, replacing the old Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The key components are:

The certificate required by this sub-section, which is similar to Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, must include:

Unless the court is satisfied with alternative forms of proof, the evidence may be declared inadmissible if this certificate is not produced.

      Electronic documents may be relevant under a number of headings:

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

The Supreme Court permitted computer-generated call records without a Section 65B certificate, holding that such evidence could be admitted under other sections also. But later on, this was reconsidered.

The Court ruled electronic evidence without a Section 65B certificate to be inadmissible, even if the original device is made available. This was a stricter application of the rules of admissibility.

” The law now prescribes that secondary substantiation in the form of electronic records must be furnished with a instrument under Section 65B (4) of the substantiation Act.”

This Constitution Bench judgment reaffirmed Anvar’s interpretation. It laid down that:

Since Section 65 is written nearly exactly like the now-repealed Section 65B, these concepts nevertheless hold true under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Digital Signatures and Secure Electronic Records

Under Section 66 of the Adhiniyam, digital signatures are presumed to be valid if verified by a secure system as per the IT Act. This is significant in:

Presumption of validity streamlines the evidentiary burden on parties relying on digitally signed documents.

  1. Section 81: Presumption as to Gazettes, Newspapers, and Electronic Messages: The court may presume that: Emails were sent by the accused sender. Messages or anything downloaded from websites are genuine. The source of the evidence must still demonstrate its validity and applicability, though. The person providing the evidence bears the burden of proof.
  2. Section 85: Presumption as to Electronic Agreements and Records: It provides that: Electronic agreements are presumed to be valid. Secure electronic records and digital signatures carry a presumption of correctness.

This section aims to encourage reliance on digital documentation by easing evidentiary burdens.

Challenges in Admissibility of Electronic Records

Since digital files are easily changed, authentication is essential. To prove originality, hash algorithms and metadata analysis are frequently needed.

A clear, unbreakable chain of custody must be established in order for something to be admissible. This guarantees the evidence’s legitimacy and integrity from the time it was gathered until it is used in court.

Inadequate knowledge of digital forensics by attorneys, courts, and law enforcement can result in the incorrect evaluation or rejection of crucial evidence.

The global nature of digital data introduces serious jurisdictional challenges when handling electronic evidence, especially in legal proceedings. For Example:

If an accused in India used a U.S.-based email provider:

Technological Tools and Forensics in Courts

Indian courts have increasingly relied on digital forensics labs, hash value verification, and data recovery tools to validate evidence. The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam implicitly supports these mechanisms through its emphasis on reliability, integrity, and certification. Blockchain-based evidence registries and AI-based document authentication tools are being explored for future integration.

Foreign Comparisons

United Kingdom

Electronic evidence is admissible under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Civil Evidence Act 1995, provided that it is pertinent and not prohibited by illegality or hearsay. Reliability and chain of custody are crucial, yet there is no certificate required as in India.

United States

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) place a strong emphasis on authentication (Rule 901) and permit digital evidence as long as it is backed up by technological verification or witness testimony.

A more formalistic tradition is reflected in India’s harsher approach under the Adhiniyam, particularly with regard to the certification requirement.

Suggestions for Training and Capacity Building in Effective Implementation

Conclusion

With the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, India’s evidence law has made great progress, especially in relation to electronic records. It achieves a balance between the requirements of a digital society and conventional legal protections by integrating procedural safeguards, reliability, and integrity. Although court rulings provide more clarity, robust implementation, digital literacy, and judicial skill are necessary to fully actualize the promise of the legislation. The importance of electronic evidence in the administration of justice will only increase as India’s economy and governance become more digitally integrated.

However, legal reform alone is not sufficient. The effectiveness of these changes depends heavily on practical implementation, which includes the capacity-building of legal professionals, proper training of judges and police officers in handling electronic data, and the establishment of robust digital forensic infrastructure. Uniformity in interpretation and application across courts, combined with technological awareness, is essential to avoid miscarriages of justice stemming from either the misuse or misunderstanding of digital evidence.

Moreover, there is a pressing need for synergy between the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and other procedural laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure. As cybercrimes and online disputes become increasingly common, courts must be equipped to evaluate digital trails with both technical acumen and legal rigor.

In conclusion, while the Adhiniyam signifies a progressive shift toward a more digital-savvy legal system, it must be supported by sustained institutional commitment, public legal education, and continued judicial interpretation to fully realize its potential. The future of justice in India lies in embracing the digital age without compromising the foundational principles of fairness, reliability, and due process.

Bibliography


Spread the love
Exit mobile version