ABSTRACT

The rapid digitalization of society has transformed the nature of evidence presented in legal proceedings, necessitating a robust and contemporary legal framework. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 marks a significant evolution in Indian evidentiary law, especially in the context of electronic evidence. This study explores the key innovations introduced by the new Act, focusing on the expanded definition, admissibility criteria, and procedural safeguards for digital records. Through doctrinal analysis and empirical observations, the research examines how the Act addresses challenges related to authenticity, reliability, and chain of custody for electronic evidence. 1

The report also highlights the practical implications for legal practitioners, law enforcement, and the judiciary, while identifying potential obstacles in implementation. By analyzing recent case law and stakeholder perspectives, this study aims to provide comprehensive insights into the effectiveness of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in strengthening the evidentiary value of electronic records and aligning Indian law with global standards.

The transformation of India’s legal landscape in response to rapid technological advancements has culminated in the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a comprehensive reform that replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. 2 This new legislation is designed to address the complexities of the digital age by explicitly recognizing electronic and digital records as primary evidence, a significant departure from the earlier framework where such records were often treated as secondary evidence.

The Act introduces clear definitions, modern terminology, and structured procedures for the admissibility, authentication, and evaluation of electronic evidence, including requirements for expert certification and hash value verification to ensure the integrity and reliability of digital records. 3 This study critically examines the key innovations brought by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, focusing on its expanded scope, procedural safeguards, and its alignment with global standards for digital evidence. Employing both doctrinal and empirical methodologies, the research analyzes statutory provisions, judicial trends, and practical challenges encountered by stakeholders such as legal professionals, law enforcement, and the judiciary. Traditional how individuals communicate and transact but also how legal systems function. In recent years, the legal frameworks, designed in an era of paper records and physical evidence, have struggled to adequately address the unique challenges posed by digital data—such as questions of authenticity, integrity and various needs that has to be addressed on the daily basis regarding it.

Introduction

The digital revolution has fundamentally altered the way information is created, stored, and exchanged, resulting in a profound impact on the administration of justice. As electronic devices and digital platforms become integral to daily life, courts are increasingly confronted with evidence in digital formats—ranging from emails and text messages to digital contracts and surveillance footage. Recognizing the need for a legal framework that keeps pace with technological advancements, India has introduced the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which represents a significant departure from the colonial-era Indian Evidence Act of 1872. 4

This new legislation is tailored to address the complexities and challenges associated with electronic evidence. It introduces clear definitions, robust procedures for admissibility, and safeguards to ensure the authenticity and reliability of digital records. By explicitly recognizing electronic records as primary evidence and establishing stringent standards for their verification, the Act aims to enhance the credibility of digital evidence in judicial proceedings. The reforms also reflect a broader commitment to aligning India’s evidentiary laws with international best practices, ensuring that the justice system remains both effective and equitable in the digital age. 5

This study seeks to explore the key innovations brought about by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, examining its impact on legal practice, the judiciary, and law enforcement. Through a combination of doctrinal and empirical research, the report aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the new provisions are shaping the landscape of electronic evidence in India. The exponential growth of digital technology has transformed the fabric of modern society, influencing not only proliferation of smartphones, computers, cloud storage, and social media platforms has led to a surge in the volume and complexity of electronic evidence presented before courts. 6

Traditional how individuals communicate and transact but also how legal systems function. In most of the cases it is very important for us to rely on the data and most probably in the recent years, the legal frameworks, designed in an era of paper records and physical evidence, have struggled to adequately address the unique challenges posed by digital data—such as questions of authenticity, integrity, and chain of custody. India’s legal response to these emerging challenges has culminated in the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This legislation marks a pivotal shift from the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which, despite several amendments, was increasingly ill-equipped to handle the nuances of electronic evidence in the digital age. 7 The new Act introduces comprehensive provisions that not only recognize electronic records as primary evidence but also lay down detailed procedures for their admissibility, verification, and preservation. One of the most notable aspects of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is its focus on enhancing the credibility and reliability of digital evidence.

This study delves into the key innovations introduced by the Act, analyzing their significance for various stakeholders, including the judiciary, law enforcement, and litigants. It also examines the implementation challenges and explores how these reforms are likely to shape the future of legal proceedings in India. Through a blend of doctrinal analysis and empirical insights, this report aims to provide a holistic understanding of the transformative impact of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on the landscape of electronic evidence, and to contribute to the ongoing discourse on legal modernization in the digital era. 8

Overview of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), represents a landmark reform in Indian evidence law, replacing the colonial-era Indian Evidence Act of 1872. This new legislation was enacted to modernize and streamline the rules of evidence in line with contemporary judicial needs and technological advancements. 9 The BSA is structured into four parts, twelve chapters, and comprises 170 sections, consolidating and updating the principles governing the admissibility, evaluation, and relevance of evidence in Indian courts. 10

One of the most significant features of the BSA is its explicit recognition of electronic and digital evidence, reflecting the realities of the digital age. The Act provides clear guidelines for the admissibility of such records, including requirements for certification and expert verification, thereby enhancing the reliability and probative value of electronic evidence. 11

The BSA also introduces modern terminology, eliminates obsolete provisions, and incorporates safeguards to ensure fair trials and protect against custodial injustices. 12 In addition to retaining many foundational concepts from the previous law—such as confessions, relevancy of facts, and burden of proof—the BSA addresses inconsistencies and ambiguities that has arisen under the old regime. 13 It aims to provide a more transparent and efficient framework for judicial proceedingsproceedings, aligning India’s evidence law with global standards and best practices.

Historical Context:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), was enacted against the backdrop of a legal system that had relied on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for over 150 years. The Indian Evidence Act was introduced during the British colonial period to standardize the diverse and often inconsistent evidentiary practices that existed across princely states and communities in India. Prior to its enactment, rules of evidence were fragmented, varying according to local customs, caste, religion, and social status. 14 The 1872 Act, largely drafted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, consolidated and codified the law of evidence, introducing a uniform and scientific approach based on English legal principles.

Despite its historical significance, the Indian Evidence Act gradually became outdated, especially in the face of rapid technological advancements and the increasing prevalence of digital and electronic evidence. 15 The need for a modern, comprehensive statute that could address contemporary challenges led to the formulation of the BSA, 2023. This new law reflects the evolving needs of India’s justice system, providing clear guidelines for the admissibility and evaluation of electronic evidence, and aligning evidentiary standards with international best practices. 16 The BSA, 2023, thus marks a significant departure from colonial-era legislation, aiming to ensure justice, fairness, and transparency in the digital age while streamlining the adjudication process for modern legal contexts. 17

Need for Repealing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was a pioneering statute for its time, aiming to bring uniformity and structure to evidentiary rules across colonial India. However, over the past 150 years, society, technology, and the nature of evidence have evolved dramatically, rendering many provisions of the Act outdated and inadequate for present-day needs. 18 The Act was drafted in a period when concepts such as digital evidence, forensic science, and electronic records were nonexistent, and its language and structure reflect the realities of the 19th century rather than the complexities of the 21st century. Despite amendments, the Act has struggled to keep pace with advances in science and technology. For instance, the inclusion of electronic and digital records was a relatively recent development, but even these updates have been criticized as insufficiently in addressing the challenges of authenticity, admissibility, and reliability of such evidence in modern courts. 19 The lack of clear guidelines for handling digital evidence, the continued use of colonial-era terminology, and the absence of provisions for contemporary scientific techniques have all contributed to the Act’s diminishing relevance.

Furthermore, the Act’s rigid framework and outdated presumptions have often led to procedural hurdles and interpretational ambiguities, hampering the delivery of justice. These limitations underscored the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul, resulting in the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which aims to provide a modern, technology-oriented, and contextually relevant framework for the law of evidence in India. 20

Digital Transformation and Legislative Reform:

The rapid integration of digital technologies into every aspect of life has fundamentally changed the nature of evidence presented in Indian courts. Traditional legal frameworks, particularly the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, were not equipped to handle the complexities posed by electronic data, digital records, and cybercrimes. 21 The increasing reliance on emails, CCTV footage, social media posts, and electronic contracts in both civil and criminal proceedings highlighted the need for a legal overhaul that could address issues of authenticity, chain of custody, and cybersecurity. Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, such as Sections 65A and 65B, attempted to accommodate electronic evidence by introducing certification requirements and special provisions for digital records. The law also persisted in the way that can be useful for such a ways where the digital records and evidences have to be examined during the trial in many cases. However, practical challenges persisted, especially regarding the acquisition of Section 65B certificates from third parties and the technical expertise required to verify the integrity of digital evidence. 22 The Information Technology Act, 2000, further recognized electronic records and digital signatures, providing a legal foundation for their use, but gaps remained in procedural clarity and implementation. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), was enacted to directly address these gaps and bring Indian evidence law in line with contemporary technological realities. The BSA expands the definition of “documents” to include digital records, ensures that electronic evidence cannot be denied admissibility solely because of its form, and establishes uniform certification and expert authentication processes to enhance the reliability of digital evidence. 23 Provisions like Section 61 prohibit the rejection of electronic records on the basis that they are electronic, while Section 63 introduces a standardized process for certification, allowing for expert authentication where necessary. 24

The Act also recognizes the evolving landscape of technology by allowing flexibility in the certification process, acknowledging that obtaining certificates may not always be feasible— especially with data from social media platforms or cloud services. In such cases, alternative authentication methods are permitted. Furthermore, the BSA empowers courts to scrutinize not just the content but also the metadata, access logs, and retrieval methods of digital evidence, often relying on expert testimony and forensic analysis to ensure integrity and chain of custody.

Despite these advancements, practical challenges remain, including infrastructure gaps in lower courts, lack of standardized digital tools, and cybersecurity threats such as hacking and data breaches. The judiciary and legal practitioners must continuously update their knowledge and skills to keep pace with new forms of digital manipulation, such as deepfakes and synthetic media. The BSA represents a forward-thinking approach, but its success depends on ongoing technological upgrades, policy reforms, and capacity building within the justice system. 25

Objectives and Key Features of BSA, 2023:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, 2023) was introduced with the primary objective of modernizing India’s law of evidence to meet the demands of a rapidly changing technological and social landscape. One of the central aims of the Act is to address the growing significance of electronic and digital records in legal proceedings. 26 By explicitly recognizing electronic records as primary evidence, the BSA, 2023 ensures that courts are equipped to handle cases involving emails, digital contracts, CCTV footage, and other forms of digital data with clarity and confidence. This shift is crucial in an era where digital footprints are often central to both civil and criminal disputes, and where the authenticity and reliability of such evidence must be safeguarded through robust legal standards. 27 A key feature of the BSA, 2023 is the expansion of the definition of “documents” to include electronic and digital records, thereby removing ambiguity about their admissibility. The Act introduces standardized procedures for the certification and authentication of electronic evidence, such as the use of hash values and expert verification, to address concerns about tampering and data integrity. 28 Additionally, the BSA, 2023 streamlines the process of admitting evidence by eliminating outdated provisions and adopting contemporary terminology that reflects current legal and technological realities. The Act also incorporates safeguards to ensure the fair treatment of individuals, including clear protocols for maintaining the chain of custody and provisions for expert testimony in complex cases involving digital evidence. 29

Furthermore, the BSA, 2023 aligns India’s evidentiary framework with international best practices, promoting transparency, efficiency, and justice in the adjudication process. By addressing long standing gaps in the previous law and providing clear guidance for the treatment of modern forms of evidence, the Act aims to create a future-ready legal system that upholds the principles of justice and meets the evolving needs of Indian society. 30

Key Definition under Section 2(e) – “Electronic or Digital Records as Evidence”:

Section 2(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 defines “evidence” in a manner that expressly incorporates both traditional and modern forms of proof, reflecting the realities of the digital age. 31 According to this section, “evidence” includes all statements—whether made orally or electronically—that the court permits or requires to be made by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry. 32 This broadens the scope of oral evidence to encompass statements delivered through electronic means, such as video conferencing or digital recordings. 33 Additionally, the definition extends to documentary evidence, which now explicitly includes electronic and digital records. This means that any matter expressed, described, or recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures, marks, or any other method—including electronic or digital formats—is considered a document and can be used as evidence. 34 Examples include emails, digital contracts, messages stored on computers or smartphones, and information saved on semiconductor memory or other digital devices. By including electronic and digital records within the definition of evidence, the Act ensures that such materials are treated as primary evidence not merely as any secondary evidence as was often the case under previous law. 35 This inclusive approach aligns with the definitions provided in the Information Technology Act, 2000, where “electronic record” means data, records, images, or sounds stored, received, or sent in electronic form, and “data” encompasses any representation of information prepared or processed by a computer system. 36 The explicit recognition of digital records as evidence under Section 2(e) thus marks a significant step in adapting Indian evidentiary law to contemporary technological advancements and the demands of modern judicial proceedings. 37

Table: – Comparison between Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:

 

Reclassification and Structure of Evidence under BSA:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) introduces a significant reclassification and restructuring of evidence to address the complexities of modern judicial processes, especially in the context of technological advancements. 38 While retaining the traditional distinction between oral and documentary evidence, the BSA explicitly broadens the scope of documentary evidence to include electronic and digital records as primary evidence. 39 This marks a departure from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where electronic records were generally treated as secondary evidence and their admissibility was often subject to additional requirements. 40 Under the BSA, documentary evidence now encompasses both primary evidence—such as original documents, electronic records, and video recordings—and secondary evidence, which includes copies, oral accounts of document contents, and expert testimony regarding document examination. 41 The Act further clarifies that secondary evidence may be introduced not only when the original is unavailable or destroyed, but also when the authenticity of the original is in question. By integrating these reforms, the BSA ensures that the classification and structure of evidence are aligned with contemporary legal standards and technological realities, promoting greater clarity, fairness, and efficiency in the judicial process. 42

Concept and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:

The concept of electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) marks a major evolution in Indian evidentiary law, recognizing the growing role of digital information in legal proceedings. 43 Electronic evidence refers to any information of probative value that is stored or transmitted in electronic form, such as emails, digital documents, server logs, messages, audio and video files, and data on devices like computers, smartphones, CDs, and pen drives. 44 The BSA explicitly includes electronic and digital records as both oral and documentary evidence, treating them at par with traditional forms of evidence. 45 The BSA explicitly includes the admissibility of electronic evidence is governed by Section 63 of the BSA, which provides that any information contained in an electronic record—whether printed, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory—is deemed a document if certain conditions are met. These conditions require that the device was regularly used, operated properly, and produced accurate records, and that a certificate authenticating the record is provided. This certificate must include technical details such as hash values and the algorithm used, and be signed by both the person in charge and an expert, as specified in the Act’s Schedule. This ensures the integrity and authenticity of the electronic evidence. 46

The BSA also classifies electronic records as primary evidence, unlike the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which often treated them as secondary evidence. This means digital files stored or transmitted in multiple locations are all considered primary evidence unless their authenticity is challenged. 47 The Act thus addresses previous challenges related to the admissibility and reliability of digital evidence, ensuring that courts can confidently rely on electronic records when the legal requirements for authenticity and integrity are fulfilled. 48

Meaning and Scope of Electronic Evidence:

The meaning and scope of electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) have been significantly broadened to reflect the realities of a digital society. Electronic evidence includes any information of probative value that is stored or transmitted in electronic form, such as emails, digital documents, server logs, messages, websites, voice mail, and multimedia files stored on devices like computers, smartphones, CDs, pen drives, and other digital storage media. 49 Section 2(e) of the BSA explicitly includes statements given electronically as oral evidence and recognizes electronic or digital records as documentary evidence, thus bringing them at par with traditional forms of proof. 50 Section 63 of the BSA further clarifies that any information contained in an electronic record—whether printed, stored, recorded, or copied on optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory—is deemed a document, provided certain conditions are met. The definition of “electronic record” is aligned with Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which encompasses data, records, images, or sounds stored, received, or sent in electronic form. 51 The BSA also recognizes that electronic evidence can originate from a wide array of devices and formats, including video conferencing statements, digital contracts, and social media content. 52 Importantly, the BSA classifies electronic records as primary evidence, a departure from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where such records were generally treated as secondary evidence. This shift ensures that digital records, when authenticated as per the Act’s requirements, hold the same evidentiary value as original paper documents, thereby strengthening the reliability and legal standing of electronic evidence in judicial proceedings.

Legal Recognition and Admissibility:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) grants explicit legal recognition to electronic and digital records as evidence, treating them at par with traditional documents. Section 2(d) and 2(e) clarify that electronic records—including emails, server logs, digital documents, messages, and multimedia files stored on devices like computers, smartphones, and storage media—are considered “documents” and “evidence” under the Act. 53 Section 93 creates a presumption in favor of electronic records that are at least five years old and produced from proper custody, allowing courts to presume the authenticity of such records and their electronic signatures. 54 Admissibility of electronic evidence is governed by Sections 62 and 63 of the BSA. Section 62 states that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63, which sets out the requirements for admissibility. 55

Under Section 63, any information contained in an electronic record—whether printed, stored, recorded, or copied on optical, magnetic, or semiconductor media—is deemed a document, provided certain conditions are met. 56 These include regular use and proper operation of the device, accuracy of the record, and the production of a certificate authenticating the electronic record. This certificate must be signed by the person in charge of the device and, where required, by an expert, and must include technical details such as hash values and device specifications. 57 The BSA thus streamlines the process for admitting electronic evidence, making it clear that electronic records are primary evidence if produced from proper custody and authenticated as prescribed. 58 This approach addresses previous ambiguities and ensures that digital evidence is both legally recognized and reliably admissible in Indian courts. 59 This approach addresses previous ambiguities and ensures that digital evidence is both legally recognized and reliably admissible in Indian courts. 60

Section 61 – Electronic or Digital Record:

Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes that no provision in the Act shall be used to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record solely on the ground that it is in electronic or digital form. 61

This means electronic and digital records are to be treated as fully admissible evidence, enjoying the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as any other document, provided they meet the requirements set out in Section 63 regarding authentication and admissibility. 62 This provision ensures that digital evidence—such as emails, digital contracts, social media messages, and multimedia files—cannot be excluded from judicial proceedings simply because of their format, reflecting the Act’s commitment to technological neutrality and legal modernization. 63 Additionally, Section 61 reinforces that electronic or digital records, once authenticated as required by law, possess the same evidentiary weight and enforceability as traditional documents, ensuring that the form of the record does not prejudice its acceptance in court. 64

Section 62 – Special Provisions as to Evidence Relating to Electronic Record:

Section 62 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides special provisions regarding the evidence of electronic records. 65 It states that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 63. 66 This means that while electronic records are treated as documents for evidentiary purposes, their contents must be established by following the specific procedures and conditions outlined in Section 63, which deals with the admissibility and authentication of electronic records. 67 Section 62 thus ensures that electronic records are not only recognized as evidence but also that their evidentiary value is subject to rigorous standards of proof, promoting both reliability and consistency in the treatment of digital evidence in courts. 68 Section 62 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down that the contents of electronic records can be proved only in accordance with the provisions of Section 63, which means that electronic records are treated as documents, but their admissibility and evidentiary value depend on fulfilling specific conditions related to their authenticity and reliability as outlined in Section 63. 69 This section ensures that electronic records are not automatically accepted as evidence; instead, they must undergo a process of verification and certification, thereby maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and safeguarding against the risks of tampering or manipulation associated with digital data. 70 By linking the admissibility of electronic records to the requirements specified in Section 63, Section 62 emphasizes the need for a rigorous and standardized approach to the presentation and acceptance of digital evidence in Indian courts. 71

Section 63 – Admissibility of Electronic Records:

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 sets out the comprehensive framework for the admissibility of electronic records in Indian courts. It provides that any information contained in an electronic record—whether printed, stored, recorded, or copied on paper, optical or magnetic media, or semiconductor memory produced by a computer or communication device— shall be deemed a document and admissible as evidence, provided certain conditions are met. 72 These conditions include regular use and proper functioning of the device, accuracy of the electronic record, and that the information was fed into the device in the ordinary course of activities. 73 All computers or devices involved in the process are treated as a single system for evidentiary purposes. 74

A key requirement under Section 63 is the submission of a certificate authenticating the electronic record. This certificate must be signed by the person in charge of the device or management of the relevant activities and, where necessary, by an expert. It should contain details about the device, the process of production, and technical specifications such as hash values, ensuring the authentic values, ensuring them the needs and have integrity of the electronic record. 75 This approach, which replaces the earlier Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, strengthens the evidentiary value of digital documents while safeguarding against manipulation or misuse. 76

Judicial Standards for Admissibility:

Judicial standards for the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 emphasize both procedural rigor and technological reliability. Courts require that electronic records be authenticated through a certification process, as outlined in Section 63, which mandates a certificate signed by the person in charge of the device and an expert, and the inclusion of a hash value to verify the document’s integrity. 77 This ensures that the evidence presented is genuine and has not been tampered with, addressing concerns of authenticity, chain of custody, and cybersecurity. 78 The judiciary also insists on maintaining a proper chain of custody for digital evidence, documenting every stage from collection to presentation in court, to prevent unauthorized access or alteration. These standards aim to balance technological advancements with due process, ensuring that electronic records are treated with the same evidentiary value as traditional documents, provided their authenticity and integrity are established through strict compliance with the Act’s requirements. 79

Exceptions and Challenges in Application:

Exceptions and challenges in the application of electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 often arise from practical, procedural, and technological complexities. 80 Courts may face difficulties when electronic records are submitted without the required certificate or when the certificate is incomplete, especially in cases where the original device is inaccessible or the chain of custody is disrupted. 81 The Act presumes the correctness of information in an Electronic Signature Certificate unless proven otherwise, but this presumption does not extend to unverified subscriber information or when there are doubts about the origin or integrity of the record. 82 Questions also persist regarding the eligibility and role of experts who certify electronic evidence, as the Act does not clearly define their qualifications or appointment process, leading to potential disputes over the authenticity of digital records. 83

Additionally, the lack of adequate infrastructure and technical expertise in courts and among legal practitioners can hinder the effective handling, examination, and verification of electronic evidence, making the system vulnerable to manipulation or errors. 84 These challenges highlight the need for continuous updates to legal processes, improved training, and robust technological support to ensure the reliable and fair use of electronic evidence in judicial proceedings. 85 Disparities in digital infrastructure between urban and rural areas further complicate the consistent application and verification of electronic evidence across the country. Uncertainties about the qualifications, appointment, and role of experts responsible for certifying electronic evidence create significant procedural challenges, as the Act does not specify who these experts should be or how they should be selected, leading to confusion for parties and courts in validating the authenticity of digital records. 86

Key Innovations under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:

The Act classifies electronic and digital records—including data from computers, smartphones, and other devices—as primary evidence, a significant shift from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which generally treated them as secondary evidence. 87 This change streamlines the admissibility of digital documents and reflects the realities of the digital era. 88 The scope of secondary evidence has been broadened to include new forms of digital and electronic records, making it easier to admit copies or reproductions when originals are unavailable or their authenticity is challenged. 89 The Act introduces a mandatory certification process for electronic evidence, requiring technical details such as hash values and expert authentication. This ensures the integrity and authenticity of digital records and addresses concerns about tampering, misleading. The archaic terms have been removed and more inclusive, technology-oriented language has been adopted, making the law clearer and more accessible for contemporary legal practice. 90 The Act incorporates clear procedures for the admission, verification, and use of electronic evidence, including the use of standardized software and blockchain technology for data integrity. This modernization aims to speed up trials and minimize disputes over the authenticity of digital evidence. 91 By updating evidentiary rules to reflect current technology and social realities, the Act ensures that the legal system remains effective and fair in the face of rapid digital transformation. 92

Presumptions Related to Digital Evidence:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 introduces several statutory presumptions to facilitate the use of digital evidence in judicial proceedings. Courts may presume the authenticity and integrity of electronic records under specific conditions, such as when a record is at least five years old and produced from proper custody, as provided in Section 93. These presumptions ease the evidentiary burden for parties relying on digital documents, expediting dispute resolution where electronic evidence is central to the case. 93 The Act also creates presumptions regarding secure electronic records and secure electronic signatures, provided they comply with prescribed protocols like encryption and digital key infrastructure. Official electronic records, digital contracts with electronic signatures, and entries in electronic signature certificates are also given presumptive authenticity, subject to rebuttal by the opposing party. 94 However, these presumptions are not absolute—courts retain discretion to assess the reliability, source, and integrity of the electronic material, especially in cases lacking proper certification or where questions about tampering arise. This balanced approach encourages the adoption of secure digital practices while safeguarding procedural fairness. 95

Section 73 – Proof as to Verification of Digital Signature:

Section 73 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 empowers the court to verify the authenticity of a digital signature during any legal proceeding. 96 To determine whether a digital signature genuinely belongs to the person who purportedly affixed it, the court may direct the concerned individual, the Controller, or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC). 97 Additionally, the court can authorize any other person—typically an expert—to use the public key listed in the DSC to verify the digital signature. 98 This process ensures that only valid and authenticated digital signatures are accepted as evidence, thereby strengthening the reliability and admissibility of electronic records in judicial proceedings. 99 The court’s power under Section 73 also extends to appointing a digital expert to use the public key from the Digital Signature Certificate for verifying the signature, and if the signature fails verification, the document may lose its evidentiary value in the proceedings. 100 The court has go the power to interpret the law, which will determine the concept or the irregularities in the dimension if the provisions has any way which has place to safeguard the system and individuals.

Section 85 – Presumption as to Electronic Agreements:

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that the court shall presume every electronic record purporting to be an agreement, which contains the electronic or digital signatures of the parties, was validly concluded by those signatures. 101 This presumption greatly simplifies the process of proving the authenticity and enforceability of electronic agreements in legal proceedings, as the burden shifts to the party challenging the agreement to prove otherwise. 102

The provision encourages the use of digital contracts by giving them the same legal standing as traditional written agreements, provided they bear proper electronic or digital signatures. 103 Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 creates a legal presumption that any electronic record purporting to be an agreement and bearing the electronic or digital signatures of the parties is presumed to be valid and properly executed by those signatures. This means that courts will accept such electronic agreements as authentic and enforceable unless evidence is provided to the contrary. 104 The provision streamlines the acceptance of digital contracts in legal proceedings, shifting the burden of proof to the party challenging the ways that agreement’s validity, and thus encourages the widespread use of electronic records commercial and civil transactions. 105 agreement’s validity, and thus en and civil transactions. 106

Section 86 – Presumption as to Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures:

Section 86 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes key legal presumptions regarding secure electronic records and electronic signatures. In any proceeding involving a secure electronic record, the court shall presume—unless the contrary is proved—that the record has not been altered since the specific point in time to which its secure status relates. 107 Similarly, for secure electronic signatures, the court presumes that the signature was affixed by the subscriber with the intention of signing or approving the electronic record, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 108 These presumptions do not apply to non-secure electronic records or signatures, reinforcing the importance of using secure digital processes for evidentiary reliability. This provision streamlines the judicial process by reducing the burden of proof for parties relying on authenticated digital evidence. 109 These presumptions under Section 86 help safeguard the integrity of digital transactions while ensuring that secure electronic evidence is accorded the same trust and legal effect as traditional documentary evidence. 110

Section 87 – Presumption as to Electronic Signature Certificates:

Section 87 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that courts shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the information listed in an Electronic Signature Certificate is correct if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber. 111 However, this presumption does not extend to subscriber information that has not been verified. 112 This legal presumption simplifies the evidentiary process for digital signatures, making it easier to prove the authenticity of electronic transactions and documents in court, unless evidence is produced to rebut the presumption. 113 The presumption under Section 87 streamlines legal proceedings by allowing courts to accept the accuracy of information in an Electronic Signature Certificate if it has been accepted by the subscriber, reducing the need for additional proof unless challenged. However, this presumption does not cover unverified subscriber information or cases where the certificate has been suspended, revoked, or not issued by a licensed Certifying Authority, which can render the electronic signature invalid. 114 Indian law also requires that electronic signatures be unique to the signer, linked to a government-issued digital ID, and issued by a recognized Certifying Authority to ensure their legal validity and enforceability in court. 115

Section 90 – Presumption as to Electronic Messages:

Section 90 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows the court to presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the intended addressee, corresponds with the message as it was originally fed into the sender’s computer for transmission. 116 However, the court does not presume the identity of the person who actually sent the message—only the accuracy of the message’s content as transmitted. 117 This provision helps establish the authenticity of electronic communications in legal proceedings, while recognizing the challenge of verifying the true sender behind digital messages. 118 Section 90 also clarifies that while the court can presume the accuracy of the content of an electronic message as transmitted, it does not presume the identity of the sender, which means the party relying on the message must still prove who actually sent it if that becomes a point of dispute. 119 This approach balances the ease of admitting electronic communications with safeguards against impersonation or unauthorized use of digital channels. 120

Section 93 – Presumption as to Electronic Records Five Years Old:

Section 93 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 states that if an electronic record, purporting or proven to be five years old, is produced from custody the court deems proper, the court may presume that the electronic signature on the record was affixed by the person it purports to be from, or by someone authorized by that person. 121 This presumption facilitates the acceptance of older electronic records as authentic, provided they come from a credible source, and shifts the burden of proof to the party disputing the signature’s validity. 122 The explanation to Section 81 regarding the proper custody of documents also applies to this section, ensuring consistency in evidentiary standards for both physical and electronic records. 123 Section 93 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows the court to presume that an electronic record, which is at least five years old and produced from custody the court considers proper, bears an electronic signature genuinely affixed by the person it purports to be from or by someone authorized by that person. 124 This presumption is crucial for facilitating the admission of older electronic records as authentic evidence, helping to bridge the evidentiary gap between digital and physical documents. 125 Additionally, the explanation to Section 81 regarding proper custody applies here, further aligning the treatment of electronic and paper records in terms of evidentiary standards. 126 This provision streamlines litigation involving historic digital evidence, but the presumption is rebuttable if contrary evidence is presented. 127 By aligning the treatment of older electronic records with that of traditional documents, Section 93 ensures a more uniform and fair approach to the admissibility of evidence from both digital and paper sources in Indian courts. 128

Chain of Custody and Metadata Verification:

The chain of custody serves as the foundational safeguard for digital evidence, meticulously recording every instance of handling, transfer, and storage from the point of collection to its presentation in court. This unbroken documentation ensures that the evidence remains untampered and credible throughout its lifecycle. The verification of metadata—such as timestamps, file origins, and modification logs—further strengthens the evidentiary value by confirming the authenticity and integrity of electronic records. Together, these processes are vital for meeting the legal standards set forth in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as any gaps or discrepancies can lead to the exclusion of digital evidence in judicial proceedings. 129

Proper metadata verification is equally crucial. Metadata—such as timestamps, file creation details, and access logs—serves as a digital fingerprint, helping to authenticate the origin and integrity of electronic records. Forensic experts often use hashing and other forensic tools to confirm that digital evidence remains unaltered throughout its lifecycle. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, alongside landmark judicial decisions, emphasizes that without a clear and documented chain of custody, digital evidence may be deemed inadmissible. Courts require strict compliance with these procedures to ensure that electronic records presented as evidence are reliable and have not been tampered. 130

Ensuring the integrity of digital evidence in judicial processes hinges on establishing a clear chain of custody. This process requires that every instance of handling, transferring, or accessing the electronic data be recorded, creating an audit trail that demonstrates the evidence has remained unaltered and trustworthy. Metadata verification further supports this by analyzing technical details such as creation dates, modification times, and access logs, which are essential for authenticating the originality and reliability of digital records. 131 Courts rely on these procedures to prevent tampering and to ensure that only credible, unaltered digital evidence is admitted. Compliance with these standards, as reinforced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is crucial for upholding the probative value of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. 132

To establish the credibility of digital evidence, courts place significant emphasis on both the chain of custody and the verification of metadata. The chain of custody acts as a documented timeline, tracing every transfer, examination, and storage instance of digital material from the moment it is collected until it is presented in court. 133 This continuous documentation ensures that the evidence has not been tampered with or altered at any stage. 134

Metadata verification complements this process by providing technical details—such as file creation dates, modification history, and access logs—that help confirm the authenticity and integrity of the electronic record. 135 Forensic tools and hash values are commonly used to detect any unauthorized changes. Without proper documentation of the chain of custody and thorough metadata analysis, digital evidence risks being challenged or excluded during trial, as mandated by both the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and prevailing judicial standards. 136 Emerging technologies are increasingly integrated into digital forensics, reshaping how evidence is collected, preserved, and analyzed within the chain of custody and metadata verification process. collected, preserved, and analyzed within the chain of custody and metadata verification process.

Use of Emerging Technologies:

The digital forensics landscape is rapidly evolving with the integration of emerging technologies, fundamentally transforming evidence collection, analysis, and presentation. AI and ML are revolutionizing digital investigations by automating the analysis of large datasets, identifying patterns, detecting anomalies, and making predictive assessments. These technologies can quickly process vast amounts of data, flag relevant information, and even predict potential threats or suspect behaviors, significantly enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of forensic investigations. 137

With more than 60% of new data expected to reside in the cloud by 2025, cloud forensics has become crucial. Investigators face challenges such as data fragmentation across multiple jurisdictions, differing provider policies, and the need for specialized tools to extract and analyze cloud-based evidence. The development and standardization of cloud forensic tools are helping address these complexities. 138 The proliferation of IoT and mobile devices introduces new sources of digital evidence. Forensic experts must adapt to extracting data from a wide range of devices, including smartphones, wearables, and smart home appliances, which often have advanced encryption and diverse operating systems. Specialized tools and protocols are emerging to handle these challenges. 139

Automation is streamlining routine forensic tasks, while decision intelligence platforms leverage advanced analytics and machine learning to uncover hidden connections and trends in large datasets. This enables faster, more insightful investigations and supports law enforcement in managing the growing volume and complexity of digital evidence. Emerging technologies—AI, ML, cloud computing, IoT forensics, and automation—are reshaping digital forensics by improving speed, accuracy, and scalability, while also introducing new legal and technical challenges that require ongoing adaptation. 140

Blockchain-Based Evidence:

Blockchain technology is transforming the management of digital forensic evidence by providing a decentralized, immutable, and transparent platform for storing and sharing data. 141 Each transaction or entry on the blockchain is cryptographically secured and time-stamped, creating an unalterable chain of custody that is easily auditable and highly resistant to tampering or unauthorized access. This ensures that digital evidence remains authentic and its integrity can be independently verified throughout its lifecycle, from collection to courtroom presentation. 142

Smart contracts further automate evidence handling, granting access only to authorized parties and recording every interaction, which enhances accountability and compliance with legal standards. 143 Blockchain’s distributed nature also protects against single-point failures and cyberattacks, making it a robust solution for modern forensic needs. As adoption grows, blockchain-based systems are poised to strengthen the credibility and admissibility of digital evidence in legal proceedings. 144

AI-Generated and Cloud-Stored Content:

AI-generated content and cloud-stored data are reshaping digital forensics, introducing both opportunities and significant challenges. 145 AI can rapidly analyze vast datasets, automate repetitive forensic tasks, and detect anomalies or cyber threats that might elude traditional methods. 146 However, AI-generated media—such as deepfakes and synthetic images—poses authenticity challenges, making it difficult for investigators to distinguish real evidence from sophisticated forgeries. 147 Cloud storage further complicates investigations by distributing data across multiple jurisdictions and providers, requiring specialized forensic tools and legal cooperation to access and analyze evidence. 148 The combination of AI-generated content and cloud environments increases the volume and complexity of digital evidence, necessitating continuous updates to forensic methodologies and training. Investigators must now rely on advanced detection algorithms, robust metadata analysis, and strict chain of custody procedures to ensure evidence integrity and legal admissibility in court. 149

Electronic Records – Format, Legal Significance, and Challenges:

Electronic records encompass any information stored or transmitted in digital form, including emails, documents, audio, video, and data from devices like cell phones and digital fax machines. 150 These records are typically stored as binary data and retrieved using specific software instructions or code. International standards such as ISO/IEC 27037 and ISO/IEC 27050 guide the identification, collection, preservation, and processing of these records to ensure their integrity and reliability. 151

Electronic records hold probative value and are admissible as evidence in court if their authenticity and integrity can be established. Under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000, specialized laboratories may be notified as Examiners of Electronic Evidence to provide expert opinions on such records. Courts rely on these records for investigative and adjudicative purposes, provided the chain of custody is maintained and proper forensic procedures are followed. 152 Key challenges include ensuring the authenticity, integrity, and admissibility of electronic records. Issues such as data tampering, loss during transfer, encryption, and the sheer volume and diversity of digital formats complicate their handling. 153 Investigators must also address jurisdictional issues with cloud-stored data and comply with evolving international standards for digital forensics. Proper documentation, use of certified forensic tools, and adherence to best practices are essential to overcome these hurdles and ensure that electronic records are accepted as credible evidence in legal proceedings. 154

Digital Courts and Paperless Litigation under BSA:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) supports India’s transition to digital courts and paperless litigation by modernizing the admissibility and management of electronic records. Digital Courts, a flagship initiative of the Indian judiciary, enable judges and stakeholders to view, annotate, and manage all case-related documents—such as pleadings, chargesheets, and orders—online, eliminating the need for physical files. Integrated platforms provide real-time case updates, document translation, and voice-to-text features, further streamlining judicial workflows. 155 Paperless litigation enhances transparency, accountability, and efficiency by digitizing court records and proceedings, reducing paperwork, and enabling remote access to case files. 156 The e-Courts Phase III project aims for a unified digital platform, digitization of legacy records, and expanded use of AI tools for translation and data analysis, with the goal of making nearly all court interactions paperless by 2027. The BSA’s provisions on electronic evidence—such as Section 63—ensure that digital documents are treated as primary evidence, supporting the legal foundation for paperless courts. 157 These reforms not only improve case management and reduce delays but also contribute to environmental sustainability and greater access to justice for litigants and lawyers across India. 158

Judicial Trends and Case Law Analysis:

The judicial approach to technology and digital evidence in India has evolved significantly, reflecting both progressive reforms and ongoing challenges. Recent judgments illustrate how courts are interpreting statutory powers and procedural safeguards in the digital era. For example, in a notable 2023 case, the High Court of Tripura addressed the scope of government authority under Section 69A of the IT Act regarding blocking orders. The court held that such powers extend beyond individual posts to entire user accounts, and emphasized that compliance with procedural requirements—such as providing reasoned orders—was met. 159 The court also clarified that absence of user notice does not invalidate a blocking order under the Website Blocking Rules, and highlighted the importance of timely compliance by intermediaries, ultimately denying relief due to delay and non-compliance by the petitioner. 160

The judiciary is also supporting the transition to digital courts and paperless litigation, as seen in the implementation and judicial endorsement of the e-Courts Project. Courts have recognized the validity of virtual hearings, e-filing, and digital records, provided procedural integrity and data security are maintained. 161 These developments demonstrate the courts’ willingness to adapt to technological advancements, while insisting on accountability, transparency, and adherence to statutory frameworks. 162

Pre-BSA Judicial Interpretation of Electronic Evidence:

The pre-BSA judicial interpretation of electronic evidence in India was primarily governed by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which required a certificate to authenticate electronic records for admissibility. This provision led to significant judicial debate, with the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Kishanrao Gorantyal clarified that the certificate was mandatory, but also recognized the need for procedural flexibility to ensure key evidence was not excluded due to technicalities. 163 Courts struggled with conflicting judgments and legislative gaps, prompting the development of detailed procedures for the identification, collection, and production of electronic evidence. 164

The legal landscape under the IEA recognized emails, messages, digital documents, and social media posts as admissible evidence, provided their authenticity and chain of custody could be established. However, the lack of uniformity and evolving technology often made it challenging for litigants to present electronic evidence effectively, highlighting the necessity for legislative reform that ultimately arrived with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 165

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer – Interpretation of Section 65B (now Section 63):

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) marked a turning point in the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, now mirrored in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The Court held that electronic records offered as secondary evidence (such as CDs, VCDs, or computer prints) are admissible only if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4), certifying the manner of production and authenticity of the electronic record. 166 This certificate must be obtained at the time the electronic record is produced, and without it, the evidence is inadmissible—regardless of its relevance or probative value.

The Court clarified that Section 65B is a complete code for the admissibility of electronic evidence, and general provisions for secondary evidence under Section 63 do not apply to electronic records. 167 The Anvar ruling overruled the earlier position in Navjot Sandhu (the Parliament Attack case), establishing that strict compliance with Section 65B is mandatory to prevent manipulation and ensure reliability of digital evidence. 168 The Supreme Court in Anvar

P.V. v. P.K. Basheer held that electronic records, such as CDs, are inadmissible unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, strictly mandating compliance with procedural requirements for compliance with procedural requirements for authenticity. 169 This landmark ruling clarified that Section 65B provides an exclusive procedure for admitting electronic records, overruling earlier, more lenient interpretations. 170

Arjun Panditrao v. Kailas Kishanrao – Conditions for Admissibility:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Kishanrao Gorantyal (2020) is a landmark judgment clarifying the conditions for the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, now reflected in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The Court reaffirmed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory precondition for admitting electronic records as secondary evidence, overruling the contrary view in Shafhi Mohammad and upholding the stricter standard set in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer. 171 This certificate must be issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or management of the relevant activities, and must accompany the electronic record at the time it is produced in court. 172

However, the Court introduced important clarifications and exceptions. If the original electronic device (such as a computer, laptop, or mobile phone) is physically produced in court and the person testifies to its operation and contents, the Section 65B(4) certificate is not required, as the device itself constitutes primary evidence. 173 Where a party cannot obtain the certificate—such as when the device is controlled by a third party or service provider—the party may apply to the court to direct the concerned authority to produce the certificate. 174

The Court also emphasized that the certificate must be submitted at the time the evidence is produced, and if a defective certificate is provided, the trial judge should summon the relevant person to rectify it. 175 Additionally, the Supreme Court directed service providers to maintain call data records and other electronic records in a secure and segregated manner to ensure their availability for judicial proceedings, and called for the framing of rules under the IT Act to regulate retention, retrieval, and production of electronic records, including chain of custody and metadata preservation. 176 This judgment has provided much-needed clarity and uniformity, ensuring that electronic evidence is both reliable and legally admissible, while also accommodating practical difficulties faced by litigants in obtaining certificates from third parties. 177

Application of BSA, 2023 in Recent Judicial Decision:

The application of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) in recent judicial decisions marks a significant shift in the Indian evidentiary framework. Effective from July 1, 2024, the BSA replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including courts-martial, but not to affidavits or arbitration proceedings. 178

Recent case law demonstrates that courts are now interpreting and applying the updated provisions, especially regarding the admissibility of electronic and digital evidence, which the BSA specifically recognizes and regulates. Judges have begun referencing the new sections for the relevancy of judgments (Sections 34–38), the treatment of electronic records, and the streamlined procedures for admitting evidence, reflecting the BSA’s emphasis on transparency, efficiency, and technological adaptation. 179

This legislative update is being cited in order to clarify the admissibility of digital documents and to resolve procedural ambiguities that previously existed under the Indian Evidence Act, ensuring that evidence is evaluated under modern legal standards. 180 The BSA, 2023, which came into force on July 1, 2024, consolidates and modernizes the rules of evidence to ensure fair trials and better reflect contemporary technological realities. 181

Notably, it expands the definition of “documents” to explicitly include electronic and digital records, treating them as primary evidence rather than merely secondary, as was the case under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 182 Main aim of the act to undermine the basic means that are been useful for the people in cases related to the tampering or the manipulation of the documents or the digital records which will in turn cost them with heavy fines are the retaliation of the specific punishment and the causes of such can be a lot of reasons but has to be analysed by the courts in the various stages of the case that would be useful for the speedy trial and justice to the persons. The Act prescribes specific formats and certification requirements for electronic evidence, adding layers of accountability and reliability to their admissibility in court. Courts have already begun applying these updated provisions, referencing the new sections for the treatment of electronic records, expert evidence, and the legal obligations of witnesses and parties in producing documents. 183 This shift is intended to streamline judicial procedures, reduce ambiguity, and ensure that digital evidence is evaluated on par with traditional forms, thereby strengthening the integrity and efficiency of India’s justice system. 184

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Section 63:

Non-compliance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which governs the admissibility of electronic records, has significant legal consequences. If an electronic record is not accompanied by the required certificate of authenticity—detailing device specifications, hash values, and technical authentication, as mandated under Section 63(4)—it will be considered inadmissible as evidence in court, regardless of its probative value or relevance. 185

This strict procedural requirement ensures that only reliable and tamper-proof digital evidence is admitted, but failure to meet these conditions can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence, potentially jeopardizing a party’s case. 186 Courts have consistently upheld that procedural safeguards under Section 63 are mandatory, and any deficiency in compliance cannot be cured by oral evidence or reliance on other provisions of the Act. 187

Role of Digital Forensics and Law Enforcement:

Digital forensics plays a crucial role in modern law enforcement by enabling the collection, preservation, analysis, and presentation of digital evidence for investigations and court proceedings. 188 With the rise of cybercrimes and digital transactions, law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on digital forensics to uncover electronic evidence such as emails, messages, digital documents, and device logs, which are now recognized as primary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 189 The process is governed by strict legal standards to ensure the integrity and authenticity of digital evidence, including requirements for chain of custody, digital signatures, and secure storage. Law enforcement officers are now mandated to record searches and seizures through audio-video electronic means, further strengthening transparency and accountability. 190 Digital forensics not only helps in solving cyber-crimes but also supports investigations in traditional criminal cases by providing reliable and tamper-proof digital evidence, thereby making the legal process more efficient and reliable in the digital age. 191

Use of Cyber Forensics in Seizure and Preservation of Evidence:

Cyber forensics is essential for the lawful seizure and preservation of digital evidence, ensuring its integrity and admissibility in court. The process begins with securing the digital scene, where investigators identify and isolate all relevant devices—such as computers, mobile phones, and storage media—to prevent tampering or data loss.

Best practices dictate that investigators must document the state of devices through photographs or video before handling, and immediately record all actions in a chain of custody log to track every transfer and access point. 192 A critical step in preservation is creating a forensic image—a bit-for-bit duplicate—of the original device, ensuring that the original evidence remains untouched while analysis is conducted on the duplicate. Master copies are sealed and stored securely, while working copies are used for examination, safeguarding authenticity and preventing spoliation. 193

Throughout the process, forensic experts use cryptographic hash functions to verify that the data remains unaltered, and all storage and transfer activities are meticulously logged. 194 Maintaining a strict chain of custody and using secure storage locations are vital, as any gap or unauthorized access can render the evidence inadmissible. These procedures, when properly followed, form the foundation for reliable and defensible digital evidence in legal proceedings. 195 where investigators identify and isolate all relevant devices—such as computers, mobile phones, and storage media—to prevent tampering or data loss. Best practices dictate that investigators must document the state of devices through photographs or video before handling, and immediately record all actions in a chain of custody log to track every transfer and access point. Document the send them to the place where they have to be taken the matter into process or for the trial holders.

Admissibility of Forensic Reports in Light of Section 63:

Forensic reports based on digital evidence are admissible under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provided strict statutory conditions are met. Section 63 treats electronic records—including forensic reports, digital logs, and device data—as equivalent to traditional documents, but mandates compliance with specific procedural safeguards. 196 Most notably, Section 63(4)(c) requires that any electronic record, such as a forensic report, must be accompanied by a certificate confirming the manner of production, device integrity, and authenticity of the data. This certification must be issued by an expert or a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the device or management of the relevant activities. 197

The certificate must detail that the computer or device was operating properly during the relevant period, that the information was regularly fed and stored in the ordinary course of activities, and that the output accurately reproduces the original data. Without this certificate, the forensic report—no matter how relevant—will be inadmissible in court proceedings. 198

This framework, which builds on and clarifies the earlier Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, ensures the reliability, authenticity, and accountability of digital forensic evidence, minimizing the risk of tampering and supporting judicial efficiency in an increasingly digital legal environment. 199

Technical Challenges in Maintaining Chain of Custody:

The technical challenges in maintaining the chain of custody for digital evidence are considerable and stem from the unique characteristics of electronic data. Unlike physical evidence, digital evidence is highly volatile and can be altered, deleted, or overwritten with relative ease, making it essential to preserve its integrity from the moment of collection through to court presentation. 200

The process is further complicated by the fact that digital evidence often resides in multiple locations—such as cloud servers, mobile devices, or fragmented storage systems—requiring meticulous documentation and secure transfer protocols to ensure that every access and movement is logged and traceable.

Any gaps or inconsistencies in documentation, or failures in access control, can undermine the credibility of the evidence and render it inadmissible in court. Additionally, the diversity of devices and formats, rapid technological advancements, and the risk of cyber threats or unauthorized access all contribute to the complexity, necessitating ongoing training for personnel and the adoption of advanced digital evidence management systems to safeguard the chain of custody throughout the investigative process. 201

Role of Hashing, Timestamping, and Digital Signatures:

Hashing, timestamping, and digital signatures play critical roles in ensuring the authenticity, integrity, and non-repudiation of digital evidence throughout the chain of custody. 202 Hashing involves generating a unique digital fingerprint—such as a SHA-256 hash value—for each piece of evidence, which allows forensic analysts to verify that the data has not been altered since its initial collection; any change in the hash value indicates tampering or corruption. 203

Timestamping, particularly through trusted third-party authorities using protocols like RFC 3161, provides an immutable record of when specific data was collected or processed, establishing a verifiable timeline that supports the evidence’s authenticity and legal admissibility. 204 Digital signatures, meanwhile, authenticate the identity of individuals who handle or submit evidence, ensuring accountability and preventing unauthorized modifications. 205 Together, these technologies create a robust framework for maintaining the integrity of digital evidence, supporting its admissibility in court, and building trust in digital forensic processes. 206 Technologies create a robust framework for maintaining the integrity of digital evidence.

Practical Challenges in the Use of Electronic Evidence:

The practical challenges in the use of electronic evidence are multifaceted and arise at every stage—from collection to admissibility in court. 207 One major issue is the strict procedural requirements for search, seizure, and documentation; if digital evidence is obtained without proper legal authority or a valid search warrant, or if the chain of custody is not meticulously maintained, courts may exclude such evidence, undermining the prosecution or defense case. The volatility and manipulability of digital data present further difficulties, as electronic evidence can be easily altered, deleted, or hidden without leaving visible traces, making its preservation and authentication complex. 208 Investigators also face significant hurdles with encrypted data and proprietary systems, where access may be impossible without passwords or decryption keys—resulting in many cases remaining unsolved due to inaccessible evidence. 209 The exponential growth in the volume and diversity of digital data, especially with the proliferation of cloud storage and interconnected devices, complicates both the identification of relevant evidence and its secure handling. Resource constraints, such as limited time and expertise, further exacerbate the challenge, as reviewing massive datasets and ensuring nothing is overlooked or altered requires specialized skills and tools. 210 Ethical and privacy concerns also arise, since digital forensics often involves handling sensitive personal information, and improper handling or selective disclosure can lead to unfair treatment or privacy violations. 211 Finally, skepticism about the scientific validity and reliability of forensic tools, coupled with the lack of universally accepted standards for digital evidence evaluation, allows defense attorneys to challenge the credibility of electronic evidence in court, sometimes successfully. 212

Authentication and Reliability Concern:

Authentication and reliability concerns are central to the admissibility of electronic evidence in court. Authentication is the process of proving that digital evidence is what it purports to be, requiring the party presenting it to demonstrate its origin, integrity, and lawful handling. This involves establishing a clear chain of custody, ensuring that every transfer and interaction with the evidence is documented from collection to presentation in court, and that the evidence has not been altered or tampered with during this process. 213 Metadata—such as timestamps, file creation dates, and modification history—plays a crucial role in verifying the authenticity and timeline of digital files, helping to confirm that the evidence is genuine and unaltered. 214 Hash values are also widely used in digital forensics to ensure data integrity; by generating a unique digital fingerprint for each piece of evidence, investigators can confirm that the data remains unchanged throughout its lifecycle. 215 Any mismatch in hash values signals possible tampering or corruption, raising doubts about reliability. 216 Expert testimony is often required to explain the technical processes involved in collecting, preserving, and authenticating electronic evidence, and to address challenges such as encryption, anonymization, or sophisticated hacking techniques that could compromise authenticity. Courts impose a high burden of proof on the party seeking to admit digital evidence, demanding clear, technical assurance that the evidence is both authentic and reliable before it can be accepted. 217

Infrastructure and Technological Gaps:

Infrastructure and technological gaps present significant hurdles in the effective handling and admissibility of electronic evidence. One of the most pressing issues is the fragmentation of digital evidence across multiple disconnected systems and platforms, often referred to as data silos, which make it difficult for investigators to access, analyze, and share critical information efficiently. 218 Law enforcement agencies frequently use separate systems for different types of digital evidence—such as body camera footage, forensic reports, and CCTV recordings—leading to inefficiencies and delays in investigations. The lack of centralized digital evidence management systems exacerbates these problems, as manual tracking and integration of evidence become cumbersome and error-prone. 219 Technological gaps are also evident in the forensic tools available for modern devices and environments. For example, the rapid proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices has outpaced the development of forensic tools capable of reliably extracting and analyzing data from these diverse and complex systems. IoT devices often use volatile memory, proprietary formats, and cloud storage, further complicating forensic investigations and increasing the risk of data loss or inaccessibility. 220 In cloud environments, investigators face limited access to infrastructure, multi-jurisdictional legal barriers, and a lack of standardized tools and procedures for collecting and analyzing evidence. 221 These challenges are compounded by the enormous volume of data generated by modern digital systems, which strains existing forensic resources and requires advanced data reduction and analysis techniques to identify relevant evidence efficiently. 222

Data Privacy and Overlap with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023:

The use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings raises significant data privacy concerns, especially as digital investigations often involve access to large volumes of personal data. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) establishes India’s first comprehensive statutory framework for protecting digital personal data, setting out clear obligations for entities that process such data and defining the rights of individuals regarding their personal information. Under the DPDP Act, personal data may only be processed for lawful purposes, typically with the consent of the individual, though there are exceptions for certain legitimate uses such as law enforcement and public interest functions. Data fiduciaries—those who process data—must maintain the accuracy and security of personal data, notify individuals in case of data breaches, and erase data once its specified purpose is fulfilled. 223

When electronic evidence is collected for legal cases, law enforcement and forensic agencies must operate within the boundaries set by the DPDP Act, balancing the need for evidence with the privacy rights of individuals. This overlap means that investigators must ensure that any collection, processing, or sharing of personal data as part of electronic evidence complies with statutory requirements, including the need for lawful purpose, reasonable security safeguards, and, where applicable, informed consent. 224

The Act also requires data fiduciaries to provide clear notice about data processing and to establish grievance redressal mechanisms for affected individuals. Failure to comply with these provisions can result in penalties, impacting the admissibility and legitimacy of electronic evidence in court. Thus, the DPDP Act, 2023, introduces a critical layer of privacy protection that must be carefully navigated in the context of digital evidence collection and forensic investigations. 225 The actual root cause of the detection and the manipulation the digital records.

Procedural Safeguards for Accessing Personal Data:

The procedural safeguards for accessing personal data under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 are designed to ensure that any processing of digital personal data is lawful, transparent, and respectful of individual rights. 226 The Act requires that data fiduciaries—those who process data—obtain explicit, informed consent from individuals (data principals) before collecting, using, or sharing their personal data, unless one of the specified legitimate uses applies, such as law enforcement or public interest functions. 227 Upon request, data principals have the right to access a summary of their personal data being processed, the identities of all other data fiduciaries and processors with whom their data has been shared, and a description of the data shared.

Data fiduciaries are also required to maintain the accuracy and security of personal data, notify individuals in case of data breaches, and delete or anonymize data once its specified purpose has been fulfilled. 228 Additionally, the Act mandates the establishment of accessible grievance redressal mechanisms, allowing individuals to seek resolution for any concerns related to their personal data. These safeguards collectively aim to balance the need for lawful access to personal data with robust protections for privacy and individual rights. 229

Procedural Inconsistencies and Lack of Uniform Practice:

The procedural inconsistencies and lack of uniform practice significantly hamper the effective use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. The absence of standardized protocols for the collection, preservation, and presentation of digital evidence across different jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies leads to varying quality and reliability of evidence. 230 This inconsistency is particularly problematic when cases involve multiple jurisdictions or when evidence needs to be transferred between different agencies. Without uniform standards, the same digital evidence might be handled differently depending on the investigating agency, potentially compromising its integrity and admissibility. 231 The rapid evolution of technology further exacerbates these inconsistencies, as new devices, platforms, and data formats emerge faster than procedural guidelines can be updated. Law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories often develop their own internal procedures in response to these technological changes, resulting in a patchwork of practices that may not be compatible with each other. This lack of standardization extends to the tools and software used for digital forensics, with different agencies employing various proprietary and open-source solutions that may produce different results when analyzing the same evidence. 232 Training and expertise disparities compound these challenges, as the quality of digital evidence handling is heavily dependent on the knowledge and skills of the personnel involved. While some agencies have dedicated digital forensics units with specialized training, others rely on officers with minimal technical background, leading to inconsistent evidence quality. These procedural inconsistencies not only affect the admissibility of evidence but also create opportunities for legal challenges, as defense attorneys can exploit gaps or variations in procedures to question the reliability and authenticity of digital evidence presented in court. 233 Moreover, the lack of clear, universally accepted guidelines for the documentation and reporting of digital forensics findings can result in incomplete or ambiguous reports, making it difficult for courts to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.

In the realm of digital forensics, the absence of standardized protocols across investigative agencies often leads to varied approaches in the collection, preservation, and analysis of electronic evidence.

This variation can result in discrepancies that affect the integrity and admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings. When procedures differ from one jurisdiction or organization to another, it becomes challenging to ensure that digital evidence is handled consistently and meets the rigorous requirements of courts. Such inconsistencies not only open the door to legal challenges but also risk undermining the credibility of forensic findings, highlighting the urgent need for harmonized practices and clear guidelines in the field. The impact of these varying practices is particularly evident when cases involve multiple agencies or cross-border investigations. Without a common framework, coordination becomes difficult and the risk of evidence contamination or procedural errors increases.

While some agencies have dedicated digital forensics units with specialized training, others rely on officers with minimal technical background, leading to inconsistent evidence quality. These procedural inconsistencies not only affect the admissibility of evidence but also create opportunities for legal challenges, as defence attorneys can exploit gaps or variations in procedures to question the reliability and authenticity of digital evidence presented in court. 234 Moreover, the lack of clear, universally accepted guidelines for the documentation and reporting of digital forensics findings can result in incomplete or ambiguous reports.

Additionally, the Act mandates the establishment of accessible grievance redressal mechanisms, allowing individuals to seek resolution for any concerns related to their personal data. These safeguards collectively aim to balance the need for lawful access to personal data with robust technology for safeguards.

The rapid evolution of technology further exacerbates these inconsistencies, as new devices, platforms, and data formats emerge faster than procedural guidelines can be updated. Law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories often develop their own internal procedures in response to these technological changes, resulting in a patchwork of practices that may not be compatible with each other. This lack of standardization extends to the tools and software used for digital forensics, with different agencies employees on Law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories often develop their own internal procedures in response to these technological changes, resulting in a patchwork of practices that may not be compatible with each other. This lack of standardization extends to the tools and software used for digital forensics, with different agencies employing various proprietary and open-source solutions that may produce different results when analyzing the same evidence.When procedures differ from one jurisdiction or organization to another, it becomes challenging to ensure that digital evidence is handled consistently and meets the rigorous requirements of courts. Such inconsistencies not only open the door to legal challenges but also risk undermining the credibility of forensic findings, highlighting the urgent need for harmonized practices and clear guidelines in the field. The impact of these varying practices is particularly evident when cases involve multiple agencies or cross-border investigations. Without a common framework, coordination. Training and expertise disparities compound these challenges, as the quality of digital evidence handling is heavily dependent on the knowledge and skills of the personnel involved. While some agencies have dedicated digital forensics units with specialized training, others rely on officers with minimal technical background, leading to inconsistent evidence quality. These procedural inconsistencies not only affect the admissibility of evidence but also create opportunities for legal challenges. The Act requires that data fiduciaries—those who process data—obtain explicit, informed consent from individuals (data principals) before collecting, using, or sharing their personal data, unless one of the specified legitimate uses applies, such as law enforcement or public interest functions Law enforcement agencies frequently use separate systems for different types of digital evidence—such as body camera footage, forensic reports, and CCTV recordings—leading to inefficiencies and delays in investigations. The lack of centralized digital evidence management systems exacerbates these problems, as manual tracking and integration of evidence become cumbersome and error-prone data.

CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

The research conducted during my internship underscores the critical importance of robust frameworks and standardized practices in the handling of electronic evidence. While digital forensics offers powerful tools for investigating cybercrimes, the field is fraught with challenges such as data volatility, procedural inconsistencies, and evolving privacy laws. The legal landscape is further complicated by rapid technological advancements and the proliferation of digital devices, which often outpace the development of clear guidelines and universally accepted standards. The introduction of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, adds a necessary layer of privacy protection but also introduces new compliance requirements that investigators must navigate. Ultimately, the effectiveness of digital evidence in legal proceedings depends on its integrity, authenticity, and the ability of legal and investigative professionals to adapt to an ever-changing digital environment.

1. Develop and Implement Standardized Protocols:- Law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies should collaborate to establish and enforce standardized protocols for the collection, preservation, and presentation of electronic evidence. This would minimize procedural inconsistencies and enhance the reliability of digital evidence in court.
2. Invest in Training and Capacity Building:- Continuous training programs should be provided to law enforcement personnel, forensic analysts, and legal professionals to ensure they are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills required to handle digital evidence effectively.
3. Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration:- Encourage partnerships between legal experts, technical specialists, and policymakers to address the multifaceted challenges of digital forensics and to ensure that legal frameworks keep pace with technological advancements.
4. Strengthen Oversight and Peer Review Mechanisms:- Implement robust oversight and peer review processes to ensure that forensic procedures are followed correctly and consistently, thereby reducing the risk of errors and increasing public trust in digital investigations.
5. Emphasize Privacy and Ethical Considerations:- Investigators must remain vigilant about privacy rights and ethical considerations, especially when accessing personal data. Clear guidelines and regular audits should be established to ensure compliance with data protection laws.
6. Support Research and Development:- Invest in research to develop advanced forensic tools and methodologies that can address emerging challenges such as cloud forensics, encryption, and IoT investigations.

By adopting these recommendations, stakeholders can enhance the reliability and admissibility of electronic evidence, ultimately strengthening the administration of justice in the digital age.

REFERENCES:

1. University at Albany. “Digital and Computer Forensics References.” Accessed June 13, 2025. https://www.albany.edu/facets/digital-computer-forensics-references.
2. Peterson, G.L., & Shenoi, S. (Eds.). Advances in Digital Forensics XIX: 19th IFIP WG 11.9 International Conference, ICDF 2023, Arlington, Virginia, USA, January 30-31, 2023, Revised Selected Papers.
3. Fischinger, D., & Boyer, M. “The Digital Forensics 2023 Dataset for Image Forgery Detection.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22417, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22417.
4. Ombu Atonbara. “Role of Digital Forensics in Combating Financial Crimes in the Computer Era.” Journal of Forensic Accounting and Contemporary Practices, vol. 3, no. 1, 2023, pp. 57-75. https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/jfaccp/v3y2023i1p57-75n5.html.
5. Nayerifard, T., Amintoosi, H., Ghaemi Bafghi, A., & Dehghantanha, A. “Machine Learning in Digital Forensics: A Systematic Literature Review.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04965, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.04965.
6. Breitinger, F., Hilgert, J.-N., Hargreaves, C., Sheppard, J., Overdorf, R., & Scanlon, M. “DFRWS EU 10-Year Review and Future Directions in Digital Forensic Research.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11292, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11292.
7. Alshumrani, A., Clarke, N., & Ghita, B. “A Unified Forensics Analysis Approach to Digital Investigation.” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Cyber Laws,2023.https://papers.academicconferences.org/index.php/iccws/article/view/972.
8. Casey, Eoghan. Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet. 4th ed., Academic Press, 2023.
9. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security. “Leading Journal in Digital Forensics.” IEEE, 2023.
10. Computers & Security. Elsevier. “Research and Reviews in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics.” 2023.
11. Journal of Digital Security and Forensics. “Online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal in cyber security and digital forensics.” 2024.
12. Aggarwal, Gaurav. “An Investigation of Digital Evidence, Digital Forensic Tools and Cloud Forensic Techniques.” International Journal of Novel Research and Development (IJNRD), vol. 8, issue 8, pp. b636-b644, August 2023.
13. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics. Inderscience. https://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijesdf.
14. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics (IJDCF). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-digital-crime- forensics/1112.
15. Digital Forensics Magazine. https://www.digitalforensicsmagazine.com/.
16. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE, 2023. A leading Q1 journal focusing on security, reliability, and digital forensics topics.
17. IEEE Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2023. Highly cited journal covering security and privacy research, including digital forensics.
18. IET Information Security. IET, 2023. Q2 journal publishing research on information security and forensic techniques.
19. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective. Taylor & Francis, 2023. International journal addressing security, forensics, and digital evidence.
20. DFRWS EU 2025 – Selected Papers from the 12th Annual Digital Forensics Research Conference Europe. Published in Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, Supplement, 2025.
21. ILE Journal of Law and Forensic Science. Covers legal and forensic science aspects of digital forensics and cybercrime investigation.
22. S-Logix. “Latest Research Papers in Digital Forensics 2025.”Curated list of recent research papers in digital forensics.
23. Digital Forensics Magazine. Online magazine featuring articles, case studies, and news on digital forensics.
24. S-Logix. “Journals of Digital Forensics 2025.” A comprehensive list of high-impact factor journals in digital forensics, including scope, evaluation metrics, and coverage of emerging topics such as machine learning, IoT forensics, and legal standards.
25. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation. Elsevier. Covers a broad array of subjects related to crime and security throughout the computerized world, including selected papers from leading conferences.
26. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics (IJESDF). Inderscience. An open-access, peer-reviewed journal linking academia, business, and industry through research in digital forensics and security.
27. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics (IJDCF). IGI Global. Publishes state-of-the-art research on digital crime, forensic tools, and legal evidence, indexed in Scopus and Web of Science.
28. Casino, Fran, et al. “Research trends, challenges, and emerging topics in digital forensics: A review of reviews.” TU Delft Repository, 2022. A qualitative review identifying global challenges and procedural issues in digital forensics.
29. Li, Shancang, ed. “Cyber Security and Digital Forensics: Trends, Issues, and Challenges.” Special Issue, Journal of Surveillance, Security and Safety, 2025. A collection of research on current trends, legal considerations, and best practices in digital forensics.
30. ILE Journal of Law and Forensic Science. “Digital Forensics and Cybercrime Investigation.” 2025. Explores admissibility, legal challenges, and privacy concerns in digital forensics and cybercrime cases.
31. 6th International Workshop on Cybercrime Investigation and Digital Forensics (CID2025). IFIP NTMS International Conference, 2025. Focuses on the challenges of cybercrime investigation and digital forensics, bringing together law enforcement.

Authored by: TALAKOLA ANJANA REDDY

Author’s Bio: 3rd year BA.LLB (Hons.) at ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad.