In short: BSA electronic evidence admissibility India is governed by a new three-section framework — Sections 57, 61, and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — which came into force on 1 July 2024. Challenging such evidence now means scrutinising a dual-signatory certificate and the expanded scope of qualifying devices.
Key points
- The BSA replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 1 July 2024. Cases commenced before that date continue to be governed by the old Act; only proceedings initiated on or after 1 July 2024 fall under the BSA.
- Electronic and digital records are now expressly included in the definition of “document” under Section 57, and are treated as primary evidence — a significant upgrade from their secondary-evidence status under the old law.
- Section 61 of the BSA contains an enabling bar: no electronic record may be denied admissibility solely because it is in electronic form.
- Section 63 governs the certificate regime and now requires two signatures — one from the person in charge of the device and one from a qualified digital-forensics expert — instead of the single signatory required under the predecessor provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The Schedule to Section 63(4) mandates disclosure of the hash value of the electronic record, making hash-value integrity a concrete, statutory checkpoint for challenge.
- The scope of qualifying devices under Section 63 has been expanded beyond computers to include any communication device or any electronic form of storage, recording, or copying — widening the pool of challengeable sources considerably.
Why the BSA matters for electronic evidence challenges
India’s three new criminal laws — the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam — came into force together on 1 July 2024. For evidence lawyers, the BSA is where the action is.
The old Indian Evidence Act treated electronic records largely as secondary evidence, hedged with extra admissibility requirements. The BSA changes that architecture entirely. Understanding the new structure is the first step to challenging evidence that has been collected or certified under it.
The three-section framework you must know
Section 57 — what counts as a document now
Section 57 defines “document” to include electronic and digital records. This is not a minor drafting change. It means electronic evidence enters court as primary evidence, not secondary evidence. The section also adds four new Explanations that define when an electronic record qualifies as primary evidence.
Explanation 4 covers simultaneous or sequential storage across multiple files — each file is primary evidence in its own right. Explanation 5 provides that a record produced from proper custody is primary evidence unless genuinely disputed. Explanation 6 deals with video recordings that are simultaneously stored and transmitted — each stored copy is primary evidence. Explanation 7 covers automated storage including temporary files within a computer resource — all such copies are primary evidence.
For a challenging lawyer, Explanation 5 is the first pressure point: dispute the custody chain and you shift the burden back to the party producing the record.
Section 61 — the admissibility bar
Section 61 states that nothing in the BSA shall operate to deny admissibility to an electronic record solely on the ground that it is in electronic form. This is a one-way gate: it protects valid electronic evidence from blanket exclusion. It does not immunise improperly certified or tampered records from challenge on substantive grounds.
Section 63 — the certificate regime
Section 63 is where most challenges will live. It deems any computer output — printed, stored on optical media, magnetic media, or semiconductor memory, or produced by any communication device — to be a document. The expansion to semiconductor memory and communication devices is new. Under the old law, the provision was limited to computers.
The certificate under Section 63(4) is the gateway to admissibility. It must identify the record and describe how it was produced, give particulars of the devices involved, address the conditions in sub-section (2), and carry two signatures: the person in charge of the computer or communication device, and a forensics expert.
Part A of the Schedule requires particulars of the electronic record including its hash value. Part B requires the expert’s certification. Both are mandatory.
Old law vs new law — a reference comparison
| Feature | Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | BSA, 2023 (from 1 July 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Status of electronic records | Generally secondary evidence | Primary evidence (Section 57) |
| Definition of “document” | Did not expressly include electronic/digital records | Expressly includes electronic and digital records (Section 57) |
| Devices covered by certificate provision | Computers only | Computers, communication devices, any electronic form (Section 63) |
| Storage media covered | Optical and magnetic media | Optical, magnetic, and semiconductor memory (Section 63) |
| Signatories on certificate | One signatory | Two — device controller and digital-forensics expert (Section 63(4)) |
| Hash value disclosure | Not expressly required | Required under Part A of the Schedule to Section 63(4) |
| Admissibility bar | Not expressly stated | Express bar against denial solely on electronic form (Section 61) |
How to challenge BSA electronic evidence — a practical checklist
Step 1: Confirm which law applies
Before you draft a single objection, confirm the date the proceedings were commenced. If the case was filed before 1 July 2024, the Indian Evidence Act continues to apply and a BSA-based objection will not hold. Only proceedings initiated on or after 1 July 2024 fall under the BSA.
Step 2: Scrutinise the certificate under Section 63(4)
Check whether the certificate carries two signatures. If only the device controller has signed and no forensics expert has certified, the certificate is defective on its face. This is a straightforward, non-technical objection you can raise at the stage of production.
Next, look at Part A of the Schedule. Has the hash value of the electronic record been disclosed? A missing or inconsistent hash value is a concrete, statutory ground to challenge the integrity of the record.
Step 3: Verify device particulars
Section 63(4) requires particulars of every device involved in producing the record. If the certificate identifies only one device in a multi-device chain — for example, a server, a forensic workstation, and a printer — it may be incomplete. Query each gap.
Step 4: Challenge custody under Explanation 5 to Section 57
Explanation 5 gives primary-evidence status to records produced from “proper custody.” If you can raise a genuine dispute about the custody of the record — who held it, how it was transferred, whether the chain is documented — you displace the presumption. The burden then falls on the producing party to prove proper custody.
Step 5: Check whether Section 61 is being misused
Some parties invoke Section 61 as if it grants blanket admissibility. It does not. Section 61 only prevents exclusion solely on the ground that a record is electronic. It does not cure a defective certificate, a broken custody chain, or a mismatched hash value. Keep this distinction sharp in your submissions.
Step 6: Examine temporary and automated files under Explanation 7
Explanation 7 makes clear that automated storage — including temporary files — within a computer resource qualifies as primary evidence. If the prosecution or opposite party is relying on such files, verify that the certificate addresses them. Temporary files can be highly vulnerable to alteration; a forensics expert who does not specifically address them in Part B of the Schedule has left a gap worth pressing.
For a broader overview of how evidentiary rules interact with daily legal practice, the Law for You guides on The Courtroom offer accessible starting points that complement the technical analysis in this field guide.
Frequently asked questions
Does the BSA apply to a case that was filed before 1 July 2024?
No. The BSA applies only to proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2024. If a case was filed before that date, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 continues to govern it — including its provisions on electronic records. Always confirm the filing date before framing your objections.
What happens if the Section 63(4) certificate has only one signature?
The certificate is defective. Section 63(4) requires signatures from both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and a digital-forensics expert. A certificate carrying only one signatory does not satisfy the statutory requirement and can be objected to on that ground at the stage of production.
Can electronic evidence be excluded simply because it is in electronic form?
No. Section 61 of the BSA expressly bars a court from denying admissibility to an electronic record solely on the ground that it is electronic. However, this does not mean the evidence is immune from all challenges. A defective certificate, a disputed custody chain, or a mismatched hash value remain valid independent grounds for exclusion or for attacking the weight of the evidence.
Primary sources
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — full text on India Code (indiacode.nic.in)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — full text on India Code (indiacode.nic.in), for cases governed by the old law
- Supreme Court of India — judgments and orders (sci.gov.in)
Written by Editorial Team, The Courtroom · Last verified 2026-07-13
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Laws change; verify against the primary sources cited and consult a qualified advocate for your situation.
