Author: Jatin Tiwari, Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur
Admissibility of CCTV Footage as Electronic Evidence: BSA 2023 Section 63 and BNSS Framework
To The Point
I. Statutory Framework: The Governing Provisions
A. Section 62 and Section 63 of the Bharatiya SakshyaAdhiniyam ,2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Acr,1872 with effect from July 1, 2024. Under Section 62 of the BSA, the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63. This is the direct successor to the Section 65A/65B framework under the Indian Evidence Act,1872. CCTV footage constitutes an electronic record within the meaning of the BSA . it is admissible as a document- either as primary evidence ( the original stored digital recording) or as a computer output ( a copy, export, or printout of the footage ) – subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 63 .
B. The Old Law: Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Under Section 65B(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, information contained in an electronic record that is printed, stored, recorded , or copied in optical or magnetic media by a computer was deemed a “document” and was admissible in any proceeding without further proof or production of the original, provided the prescribed statutory conditions were satisfied. This provision governed CCTV footage admissibility prior to July1, 2024.The transition from IEA Section 65B to BSA Section 63 does not affect the admissibility of footage recorded before July 2024. A CCTV clip recorded in 2021or any earlier period is not excluded merely because it predates the BSA; the governing question is wheather it can now be properly proved as electronic under the current law.
Use of Legal Jargon
1. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
2. Electronic Record
3. Computer Output
4. Primary Evidence
5. Secondary Evidence
6. Section 63 , Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023
7. Section 63(4) Certificate]
8. Section 65B Certificate
9. Chain of Custody
10. Forensic Integrity
11. Custodial Violence
12. Human Rights Commission
13. Human Rights Court
14. Burden of proof
15. Digital Evidence
The Proof
I. Conditions for Admissibility of CCTV Footage Under Section 63 BSA The foundational Supreme Court authority on electronic evidence admissibility under Section 65B IEA — the direct predecessor to BSA Section 63 — is Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer(2014) 10 SCC 473, in which the Supreme Court held that electronic records can only be admitted in evidence if the conditions prescribed under Section 65B are strictly complied with, and that secondary electronic evidence without a certificate under Section 65B(4) is inadmissible. The Supreme Court subsequently clarified and refined the mandatory nature of the certificate requirement and its exceptions in Arjun PanditraoKhotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, which remains the definitive ruling on the certificate requirement and governs the interpretation of the corresponding provisions under BSA Section 63. Both cases are mandatory authority for any analysis of Section 63 conditions.
A. Four Statutory Conditions For CCTV footage to be admitted as a computer output under Section 63, the following conditions must be satisfied S3waas Csja: 1. Regular Use: The computer or recording device from which the output is produced must have been used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of activities regularly carried on over the relevant period. 2. Regular Feeding of Information: During the relevant period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. 3. Proper Functioning: Throughout the material part of the period, the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation did not affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents. 4. Accuracy of Output: The information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the activities.
B. The Section 63(4) Certificate A certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA is generally required for admissibility of the electronic output S3waas LL Csja. As held in Arjun PanditraoKhotkar, this certificate requirement is mandatory when a computer output (as opposed to the original device itself) is tendered in evidence; the certificate requirement may be dispensed with only where the original storage device is itself produced as primary evidence before the court — an exception that opposing counsel will routinely invoke to challenge inadmissibility arguments where the original device is available. The BSA’s updated framework includes an expert component in the certificate format, which is a significant departure from the old Section 65B certificate under the IEA. The certificate must: Identify the electronic record Describe the manner in which it was produced Detail the computer device involved Be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
C. Primary Evidence vs. Computer Output: A Critical Distinction Mode of Proof What It Is Certificate Required Primary Evidence Computer Output Original DVR/NVR hard disk or storage device produced in court Generally not required if original device is produced Copy, export, CD/DVD, pen drive, or printout of footage Section 63(4) certificate mandatory The practical rule is that copied or exported CCTV footage — which is the most common form produced before courts — constitutes a computer output and requires the Section 63(4) certificate . Where the original DVR/NVR is produced, it may be treated as primary evidence in appropriate cases
. III. Chain of Custody and Forensic Integrity Under BNSS Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the seizure, preservation, and chain of custody of the DVR/NVR, hard disk, or exported file are critical considerations. Courts assess whether the electronic record is genuine and untampered Mahratta Bprd. The following practical steps govern admissibility: 1. Seizure: The DVR/NVR or storage device must be seized under a proper panchnama. Documentation of the hash value at the time of seizure is a forensic best practice that courts treat as relevant to establishing integrity of the electronic record Mahratta Bprd. 2. Preservation: The device must be sealed and stored in a manner that prevents tampering. 3. Chain of Custody: Every person who handled the device from seizure to production in court must be accounted for. 4. Export/Copy: Any copy made for court production must be accompanied by the Section 63(4) certificate identifying the device, the manner of copying, and the responsible official S3waas Csja. The Standard Operating Procedure for Audio Video Recording of Scene of Crime Bprd provides detailed guidance on preservation protocols that courts assess as relevant to establishing the integrity of electronic evidence, though these SOPs are administrative guidelines and not statutory requirements under the BNSS or BSA.
Abstract
The rapid advancement of technology has significantly transformed the manner in which evidence is collected, preserved, and presented before courts. Among various forms of electronic evidence, CCTV footage has emerged as a vital tool in criminal investigations, law enforcement, and the administration of justice. The admissibility of such electronic records is now governed by Section 63 of the Bharatiya SakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023, which has replaced the earlier framework under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision lays down specific conditions for proving electronic records and emphasizes the importance of authenticity, reliability, and procedural compliance in the admission of digital evidence.
This article examines the legal principles governing the admissibility of CCTV footage and analyzes the statutory requirements relating to electronic records, including the distinction between primary evidence and computer-generated output, the necessity of a Section 63(4) certificate, and the significance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody. It further explores the role of forensic integrity and proper preservation techniques in ensuring that electronic evidence remains free from tampering and retains its evidentiary value throughout judicial proceedings.
The article also discusses the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, which mandated the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and video recording facilities in police stations across India. The judgment was delivered with the objective of safeguarding constitutional rights, preventing custodial violence, enhancing transparency in police functioning, and strengthening public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court’s directions have created a framework of accountability by ensuring continuous monitoring of police stations and preserving footage for future reference and investigation.
Further, the article examines the relationship between CCTV surveillance, constitutional protections under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the broader objective of protecting human dignity and personal liberty. Through an analysis of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and practical challenges associated with electronic evidence, the study highlights the growing importance of technology-driven accountability mechanisms in modern governance. It concludes that effective implementation of CCTV surveillance systems, coupled with strict compliance with evidentiary requirements under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is essential for ensuring fair trials, protecting fundamental rights, and strengthening the rule of law in India.
Case Laws
1. PARAMVIR SINGH V. BALJIT SINGH
The Supreme Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and video recording facilities in all police stations and investigative agencies across India. The Court held that such surveillance is necessary to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and to prevent custodial violence, torture, and abuse of power. The judgment enhanced transparency and accountability in police functioning and established oversight committees for monitoring compliance.
2. ANVAR P.V. v. P.K. BASHEER
The Supreme Court clarified that electronic records are admissible as evidence only when the statutory requirements relating to electronic evidence are fulfilled. The Court emphasized that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence, thereby ensuring the authenticity and reliability of digital records.
3. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKATR V. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in AnvarP.V. and held that the requirement of a Section 65B certificate is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence when a computer output is produced before the court. The judgment clarified the scope of exceptions and strengthened the evidentiary framework governing digital records.
4. D.K. BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
This landmark judgment laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and abuse by police authorities. The Court recognized that custodial violence violates Article 21 of the Constitution and prescribed procedural safeguards during arrest and detention. The principles established in this case later became the constitutional foundation for measures such as CCTV surveillance in police stations to ensure accountability and protection of human rights.
Main Discussion
I. Constitutional Mandate for CCTV in Police Stations: Paramvir Singh Saini
A. The Supreme Court’s Directions In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. (decided December 2, 2020, reported as (2021) 2 SCC 184), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Nariman, K.M. Joseph, and Aniruddha Bose JJ.) established a non-discretionary constitutional mandate under Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) of the Constitution of India [3] Cjp. The Court directed that all States and Union Territories must install CCTV cameras with both audio and video recording capabilities at all key locations in every police station, including entry/exit points, lock-ups, corridors, interrogation rooms, lobbies, reception areas, verandas, Inspector/Sub-Inspector rooms, and areas outside washrooms.
B. Technical Specifications Mandates : The Court specified the following technical requirements Night vision capability Audio and video recording capability Uninterrupted power and internet connectivity
C. Data Storage: The 18-Month Mandate The Court mandated a primary data storage target of 18 months, with a strict minimum floor of 1 year if 18-month storage equipment is unavailable CjpCjp Ijsdr. This storage requirement is directly relevant to the admissibility of CCTV footage from police stations: footage that has been deleted or overwritten before the 18-month period raises serious questions about suppression of evidence and non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate.
D. Oversight Framework The Court established a three-tier oversight mechanism .
1. Central Oversight Body at the national level
2. State Oversight Committee for each State/UT
3. District Oversight Committee at the district level
Under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is empowered to immediately summon CCTV footage for investigations. Human Rights Courts established under Section 30 of the same Act can similarly summon this data ..
E. Right to Access Footage Victims of custodial violence and their families have the right to obtain CCTV footage from police stations. In cases of serious injury or death in custody, the SHRC and Human Rights Courts can summon the footage for investigation Cjp Cjp. Station House Officers (SHOs) are held personally liable for the maintenance, backup, and functionality of the CCTV systems.
II.. Compliance Status: 2025-2026 Update The legal rule from 2020 remains the binding precedent across India and has not been modified or diluted by the Supreme Court . The main issues in 2025-2026 are not the existence of the duty but non-compliance, delayed installation, weak storage periods, and inconsistent implementation by States .
Key developments as of 2025-2026:
A Punjab and Haryana High Court order in 2025 noted suspected non-compliance and directed the Punjab DGP to file a personal affidavit on CCTV installation in police stations, relying on the Supreme Court’s mandate in Paramvir Singh Saini.
A Delhi High Court proceeding in 2024 found that Delhi Police was still in the tender/evaluation stage for CCTV installation and disposed of the petition because the issue was already being monitored by the Supreme Court, while directing expeditious completion of the procurement process .
The Supreme Court was again seized of compliance concerns in 2025, suggesting renewed scrutiny over implementation . The Supreme Court’s original directions from 2020 continue to govern the field, and courts are using affidavits, status reports, and personal responsibility of senior police officials to enforce compliance.
III. State-Level Surveillance Legislation
Several State legislations independently mandate CCTV installation and create a statutory basis for the admissibility of footage from such systems:
The Karnataka Public Safety (Measures) Enforcement Act, 2017 Enforcement : Enacted under Entries 1 and 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, this Act mandates notified establishments to install and maintain video surveillance systems, with penal provisions for non-compliance, specifically to assist police investigations.
The Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act, 2016 :Section 19 empowers the State Government to install CCTVs in strategic locations and highways, connected to a central monitoring unit managed by the police to maintain public order.
These State enactments supplement the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate and provide an independent statutory basis for CCTV installation and footage preservation.
Conclusion
I. . Custodial Violence Context: D.K. Basu Guidelines The constitutional backdrop for CCTV mandates in police stations traces directly to D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 [6], where the Supreme Court established critical procedural safeguards to prevent custodial irregularities. The Court held that State action must remain “right, just and fair” and that using torture to extract information is impermissible under Article 21. These safeguards were subsequently codified under Section 41B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Paramvir Singh Saini directions are the logical technological extension of the D.K. Basu framework: where D.K. Basu mandated procedural safeguards at the time of arrest, Paramvir Singh Saini mandated technological surveillance to ensure those safeguards are actually observed.
II. Practical Action Points for Legal Professionals
1. Certificate Compliance: When relying on CCTV footage as evidence, ensure a Section 63(4) BSA certificate is obtained from the person in responsible official position in relation to the recording device. The certificate must identify the device, describe the manner of production, and include the expert component now required under the BSA framework.
2. Chain of Custody Documentation: Ensure the seizure panchnama records the DVR/NVR serial number and the names of all persons present. Documentation of the hash value at the time of seizure is a forensic best practice that courts treat as relevant to establishing integrity; any apparent break in the chain of custody will be exploited to challenge authenticity..
3. Preservation Demand: In cases involving alleged custodial violence or police misconduct, immediately issue a written demand to the SHO and the District Oversight Committee for preservation of CCTV footage, citing the Paramvir Singh Sainimandate. The SHO is personally liable for preservation.
. 4. SHRC/Human Rights Court Application: Where footage is being withheld or has allegedly been deleted, file an application before the State Human Rights Commission under Sections 17-18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, or before the Human Rights Court under Section 30, for summoning of footage.
5. Non-Compliance as Adverse Inference: Where footage that should exist under the Paramvir Singh Saini mandate has been deleted, overwritten, or is unavailable, argue for an adverse inference against the prosecution/State. The mandatory 18-month storage requirement means that absence of footage within that period raises a presumption of suppression.
6. Pre-BSA Footage: For footage recorded before July 1, 2024, the admissibility conditions under Section 65B IEA applied at the time of recording, but proof today is governed by Section 63 BSA. The year of recording does not exclude the footage; compliance with current proof requirements is what matters.
FAQS
Q1. What was the main issue in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh?
The case concerned the need for CCTV surveillance in police stations to prevent custodial violence and ensure accountability of law enforcement authorities.
Q2. Why did the Supreme Court mandate CCTV cameras in police stations?
The Court mandated CCTV cameras to protect fundamental rights, increase transparency, and provide evidence in cases of police misconduct or custodial abuse.
Q3. Is CCTV footage admissible as evidence in court?
Yes, CCTV footage is admissible as electronic evidence, provided the legal requirements under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are satisfied.
Q4. What is a Section 63(4) Certificate?
It is a certificate required to authenticate electronic records and establish their admissibility as evidence before a court.
Q5. What is the significance of maintaining a chain of custody?
A proper chain of custody ensures that electronic evidence remains authentic, untampered, and reliable throughout the investigation and trial.
Q6. How does CCTV surveillance help in preventing custodial violence?
Continuous audio-video recording deters misconduct, creates accountability, and provides objective evidence of events occurring within police stations.
Q7. Which constitutional right is protected through the Paramvir Singh Saini judgment?
The judgment primarily protects the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Q8. What happens if CCTV footage is deleted or not preserved?
Failure to preserve footage may raise questions regarding suppression of evidence and can adversely affect the case before the court.
