Author: Jatin Tiwari, Vivekananda Global University
To The Point
I. Statutory Framework: Section 63 BSA vs. Section 65B IEA
The Governing Provision
Under Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), electronic or digital records cannot be denied admissibility solely on the ground of their electronic format [1]. They carry the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as physical documents, subject to compliance with Section 63.
Section 63 BSA is the operative provision governing admissibility of electronic records. It replaces Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) [2] for all cases initiated after July 1, 2024 [3]. The core architecture of Section 63 BSA is as follows:
1. Section 63(1) — Deeming Fiction: Any information in an electronic record (printed on paper, stored in optical/magnetic media, semiconductor memory, or produced by a computer or communication device) is deemed to be a document and is admissible without further proof or production of the original, provided statutory conditions are met Ijirt Csja.
2. Section 63(4) — Mandatory Certificate: A certificate must accompany the electronic record when tendered in evidence. The certificate must:
3. Identify the electronic record and describe its manner of production .
4. Provide particulars of the devices involved in its production .
5. Disclose hash values (SHA1, SHA256, MD5) — now a statutory requirement.
6. Be signed by the person in charge of the computer/device and by an expert .
7. Two-Factor Authentication: Section 63 introduces dual authentication — by the device custodian and by an expert — which is a structural improvement over the single-signatory requirement under Section 65B(4) IEA .
Key Transition: IEA to BSA
Parameter
Section 65B, IEA 1872
Section 63, BSA 2023
Status of electronic records
Secondary evidence (when produced as computer output/copy)
Primary evidence (if from proper custody) Prsindia
Scope of “computer output’’
Limited to computer output
Expanded to semiconductor memory, communication devices, smartphones, emails, location data India
Hash value requirement
Forensic best practice (not statutory)
Statutory — mandatory in certificate
Certificate signatories
Person in responsible official position
Person in charge + expert
Non- discriminat ion clause
Absent
Section 61 BSA expressly prohibits exclusion on digital format alone S3waas
Applicable cases
Pre-July 1, 2024
Post-July 1, 2024
Use of Legal Jargon
• Electronic Evidence
• Electronic Record
• Admissibility
• Section 63 BSA
• Section 65B IEA
• Mandatory Certificate
• Hash Value
• Digital Evidence
• Deeming Fiction
• Primary Evidence
• Secondary Evidence
• Chain of Custody
• Forensic Integrity
• Dual Authentication
• Certificate of Authenticity
• Oral Evidence
• Burden of Proof
• Computer Output
The Proof
I. Foundational Supreme Court Precedents (Under IEA — Continuing Persuasive Value)
A. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [4] established that a certificate under Section 65B(4) IEA is a mandatory condition precedent for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. Oral evidence cannot substitute the statutory certificate. This judgment overruled the earlier permissive approach and made certification non-negotiable.
Continuing relevance: The mandatory certification principle from Anvar P.V. has been carried forward into Section 63(4) BSA and continues to govern the interpretive framework for electronic evidence admissibility.
B. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal(2020) 7 SCC 1
This is the leading Supreme Court authority on electronic evidence certification. The case arose from election petitions under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, before the Bombay High Court, challenging the election of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly.
Ratio Decidendi (from chunk text): The Supreme Court resolved the conflict between Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018) 2 SCC 801, holding that the certification requirement under Section 65B(4) IEA is an indispensable condition precedent for admissibility of secondary electronic records, thereby overruling the relaxed standard in Shafhi Mohammad.
Application under BSA: The Arjun Panditrao Khotkarframework directly informs the interpretation of Section 63(4) BSA. The mandatory nature, content requirements, and the impossibility exception have all been carried forward into the new statutory regime.
II. Recent High Court Judgments (2023–2025) on Section 65B IEA / Section 63 BSA
A. Andhra Pradesh High Court — CRLP/4885/2024 (July 2024)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRLP/4885/2024 [9] applied the Section 65B framework to electronic records, noting that the BSA’s Section 63 now governs cases initiated after July 1, 2024.
B. Gauhati High Court (July 2024)
The Gauhati High Court [3] expressly noted that Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 now governs electronic records for cases initiated after July 1, 2024, marking the formal judicial acknowledgment of the IEA-to-BSA transition in the context of electronic evidence.
C. Madras High Court (October 2024)
The Madras High Court [10] reiterated that electronic records such as CDRs in Excel format, CDs, VCDs, and pen drives can only be proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B IEA (and by extension, Section 63 BSA for post-July 2024 cases). The court applied the conditions of admissibility under Section 65B(2) strictly.
D. Bombay High Court — Yuvaraj v. State — WP/7410/2023 (March 2024)
In Yuvaraj v. State [11], the Bombay High Court, relying on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Anvar P.V., reiterated that: – CDRs in Excel format without a Section 65B(4) certificate are inadmissible- Oral evidence cannot substitute the statutory certificate – The certificate is a mandatory condition precedent, not a procedural formality
E. Allahabad High Court (December 2023)
The Allahabad High Court [12] held that under Sections 59, 65A, and 65B IEA, electronic records (CDRs, computer printouts, CDs, VCDs, pen drives) can only be proved in accordance with Section 65B. Admissibility depends strictly on satisfying the four conditions outlined in Section 65B(2). This principle maps directly onto Section 63(2) BSA for post-July 2024 cases.
F. Punjab and Haryana High Court — D/118/2019 (September 2024)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in D/118/2019 [13] applied the electronic evidence admissibility framework in a criminal matter, reinforcing the mandatory certification requirement as a threshold condition for admissibility.
G. Madras High Court — A/130/2021 (August 2024)
The Madras High Court in A/130/2021 [14] addressed the admissibility of electronic records in a criminal appeal context, applying the Section 65B certification requirements and noting the transition to Section 63 BSA for cases filed after July 1, 2024.
H. Bombay High Court — WP/1658/2024 (October 2024)
The Bombay High Court in WP/1658/2024 [15] addressed electronic evidence admissibility in the context of the BSA regime, reinforcing that the certification framework under Section 63 BSA is the operative standard for post-July 2024 proceedings.
Abstract
The increasing use of digital technology has made electronic evidence an essential part of modern legal proceedings. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs the admissibility of electronic records such as CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, emails, videos, photographs, call recordings, and other digital data. The provision aims to ensure that electronic evidence produced before a court is authentic, reliable, and free from tampering.
Under Section 63(4), a certificate is generally required to identify the electronic record, describe the manner of its production, provide details of the device used, and confirm the integrity of the
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to Section 63 of the BSA and explains the latest judicial developments between 2024 and 2026.
The study also analyzes important decisions such as Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash KushanraoGorantyal, and Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which clarify when the certificate is mandatory and how electronic evidence may be proved through different modes. The article concludes that Section 63 BSA has strengthened the legal framework for digital evidence by introducing clearer authentication requirements and adapting the law to the realities of the digital age.
Case Laws
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
This landmark judgment laid down the legal principles governing the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court held that electronic records, such as CDs, emails, CCTV footage, and computer-generated documents, are admissible only if they are accompanied by a valid Section 65B(4) certificate. The Court clarified that oral evidence cannot replace the mandatory certificate and that the special provisions relating to electronic evidence override the general rules of secondary evidence. This decision became the foundation for the law relating to electronic evidence in India.
2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash KushanraoGorantyal
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in AnvarP.V. and held that a Section 65B certificate is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. The Court overruled the earlier decision in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had relaxed this requirement. However, it also recognized a limited exception where the person relying on the electronic record cannot obtain the certificate because the device is in the possession of a third party or investigating agency. This judgment remains a leading authority on electronic evidence.
3. Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
This is one of the first significant Supreme Court judgments interpreting Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court held that a compact disc (CD) is an electronic record and is admissible once the requirements of Section 63 are satisfied. It further ruled that when electronic evidence is proved through the special statutory mode, the Section 63 certificate is mandatory. However, where electronic evidence is proved through oral evidence or witness examination, the certificate may be treated as directory rather than mandatory. The judgment also clarified that courts can directly view electronic evidence without requiring a written transcript, thereby providing practical guidance for the admissibility of digital evidence under the new.
Main Discussion
I. Latest Supreme Court Rulings on Section 63 BSA (2025)
A. Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2025)
This is the most significant recent Supreme Court judgment directly on Section 63 BSA. The key holdings are Facebook:
1. CD as Electronic Record: A compact disc (CD) is an electronic record. Once Section 63 BSA requirements are satisfied, video evidence is admissible as a document.
2. No Transcript Required: It is not necessary to prepare a transcript or have witnesses explain the video content — the court can view and interpret it directly.
3. Non-Production of Forensic Reports: The non-production of certain forensic reports is not fatal if other reliable evidence (such as FSL reports or Section 52A NDPS Act documents) exists.
4. Mandatory vs. Directory Distinction: The Section 63 BSA certificate is mandatory when proving electronic records via the special mode (without examining a witness). However, under Section 61 BSA, it is directory (not mandatory) if the evidence is proved through the ordinary mode of oral evidence or witness examination Facebook Indianlawlive.
This ruling introduces a critical nuance: the mandatory/directory distinction based on the mode of proof adopted, which relaxes the absolute rule from Anvar P.V. in cases where oral evidence is led Facebook. Practitioners should note, however, that this relaxation arose in a criminal/NDPS context, and opposing counsel in civil or commercial matters may argue that the ruling’s precise scope limits its application outside that context. Further, the relaxation may be challenged as inconsistent with the absolute rule in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, and courts have not yet uniformly resolved this tension.
B. Supreme Court — Challenge to Section 63(4) BSA: Hash Values Mandatory
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Section 63(4) BSA, affirming that disclosing hash values (SHA1, SHA256, MD5) in the certificate is mandatory LL Iledu. This is a significant development:
Under the old IEA regime, hash value verification was a forensic best practice, not a statutory requirement.
Under BSA Section 63, hash values now carry statutory force — their disclosure in the certificate is not optional.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the challenge confirms the validity of this requirement.
C. Supreme Court — Private Individuals Can Issue Section 63 BSA Certificates
The Supreme Court clarified that the Madras High Court’s view — limiting certificate issuance to government-notified experts — is not a binding precedent LL. Private individuals can issue valid certificates beyond government-appointed experts .under Section 63 BSA if they are qualified or authorized to authenticate the electronic records Supreme today. This significantly expands the pool of eligible certifiers beyondgovernment-appointed experts.
II. Consolidated Legal Position as of June 2026
Mandatory Requirements Under Section 63 BSA (Post-July 2024 Cases)
1. Certificate is mandatory when electronic records are proved via the special mode (without oral evidence) Indian law live
2. Certificate content must include:
3. Identification of the electronic record .
4. Manner of production .
5. Particulars of devices involved .
6. Hash values (SHA1, SHA256, MD5) — now statutory Law.
7. Dual signatures: person in charge of device + expert .
8. Certificate is directory (not mandatory) if electronic records are proved through oral evidence/witness examination Facebook Indian lawlive
9. Private individuals can issue valid certificates — not restricted to government-notified experts Supreme today
10. Non-compliance renders the electronic record inadmissible, regardless of relevance
11. Impossibility exception survives under BSA: where the party cannot access the device (held by third party/adversary/police), the court may admit the evidence if provenance is convincingly established Case.
Scenario
Governing Law
Certificate Requirement
Cases filed before July 1, 2024
Section 65B IEA
Mandatory (Arjun PanditraoKhotkar)
Cases filed on/after July 1, 202
Section 63 BSA
Mandatory (special mode); Directory (oral evidence mode) Facebook Indian lawlive
Device in accessible (third party/police custody)
Both Regimes
Impossibility exception applies Case mine
Hash values in certificate
BSA only
Statutory requirement LL
Certifier identity
BSA
Private individuals permitted Supremetoday
Conclusion
I. Practical Guidance for Legal Professionals
1. For pre-July 2024 cases: Continue relying on Arjun PanditraoKhotkar [5] and Anvar P.V. [4] as binding authority. The Section 65B(4) certificate remains an indispensable condition precedent.
2. For post-July 2024 cases: Section 63 BSA governs [3]. Ensure the certificate includes hash values — their absence is now a statutory defect, not merely a forensic gap LL.
3. Mode of proof strategy: If the Section 63 certificate cannot be obtained, consider leading oral evidence from the device custodian or the person who produced the electronic record — the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Kailash v. State of Maharashtra confirms the certificate is directory in such cases Facebook Indian lawlive. Note that this strategy carries litigation risk in civil and commercial matters where the scope of the Kailash ruling may be contested.
4. Challenging electronic evidence: Attack on three grounds — (a) absence of certificate or defective certificate (missing hash values, wrong signatory), (b) broken chain of custody and forensic integrity, and (c) contextual incompleteness. The Bombay High Court in Yuvaraj v. State [11] and the Madras High Court compliant certificate are inadmissible. [10] confirmthat CDRs and digital records without a compliant certificate are inadmissible.
5. Certifier selection: Do not restrict certificate issuance to government-notified experts. The Supreme Court has confirmed private qualified individuals can certify Supreme today, which is practically significant for corporate and commercial litigation involving private server data.
FAQS
1. What is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
Section 63 governs the admissibility of electronic evidence, such as emails, CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, videos, and other digital records, in Indian courts.
2. What is electronic evidence?
Electronic evidence includes any information stored or transmitted in electronic form, such as CCTV recordings, emails, text messages, call recordings, photographs, videos, pen drives, and computer data.
3. Is a certificate mandatory under Section 63 BSA?
Yes. In most cases, a Section 63 certificate is required to prove the authenticity and admissibility of electronic records before a court.
4. What information must a Section 63 certificate contain?
The certificate must identify the electronic record, describe how it was produced, provide details of the device used, and include the required hash values to establish authenticity.
5. Which landmark cases explain the law on electronic evidence?
The leading cases are Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, ArjunPanditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, and KailashS/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra.
6. Can electronic evidence be admitted without a certificate?
In limited situations, such as when electronic evidence is proved through oral evidence or the certificate cannot be obtained due to reasons beyond the party’s control, courts may consider exceptions.
7. Why are hash values important under the BSA?
Hash values help verify that an electronic record has not been altered or tampered with, ensuring its authenticity and reliability.
8. Can a private individual issue a Section 63 certificate?
Yes. A qualified or authorized private individual may issue a valid Section 63 certificate; it is not restricted only to government experts.
9. What is the main purpose of Section 63 BSA?
Its purpose is to ensure that electronic evidence presented before courts is genuine, reliable, and legally admissible.
10. Why is Section 63 BSA important?
Section 63 provides a clear legal framework for the use of digital evidence in courts, strengthens the reliability of electronic records, and helps ensure fair and effective administration of justice.