Electronic evidence

What is 'Electronic Evidence'

Electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted digitally and a party to a judicial dispute in court can use the same during the trial. It refers to any data, information, or record stored, generated, transmitted, or received in digital form that can be used as evidence in legal proceedings. This includes emails, documents, text messages, social media interactions, and even metadata associated with files.

As technology evolves, electronic evidence has become increasingly significant in both civil and criminal cases. Courts permit the use of digital evidence such as e-mails, digital photographs, word processing documents, instant message histories, spread sheets, internet browser histories, data bases, the contents of computer memory, computer backup, secured electronic records and secured electronic signatures, Global Positioning System tracks, Logs from a hotel’s electronic door, Digital video or audio etc.

Official Definition of 'Electronic Evidence'

'Electronic Evidence' as defined in legislation(s)

In India, the definition of electronic evidence is primarily found in the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 outlines the procedure for the admissibility of electronic records in courts. For electronic evidence to be admissible, a certificate under Section 65B(4) is required, stating that the evidence was produced by a reliable electronic system. Such certification ensures the integrity and admissibility of the evidence.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 regulates electronic transactions, records, and cybercrimes, laying the foundation for the recognition of electronic evidence. As per explanation under Sec-79A (Chapter XIIA) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, ‘electronic form of evidence’ means any information of probative value that is either stored or transmitted in electronic form and includes computer evidence, digital audio, digital video, cell phones, digital fax machines.
• The amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 had substituted the provisions encapsulated under Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by introducing Order XI Rule 6 applicable to proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This relates to the production of electronic records and how such electronic records ought to be produced for inspection before the Commercial Court.

Legal provisions relating to ‘Electronic Evidence’

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has introduced Section 61 which provides that nothing in this Act shall be used to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record as evidence on the basis that it is an electronic or digital record. Such records, subject to Section 63, shall have the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as other documents. This Section treats electronic records at par with documentary evidence as already treated under the IEA as amended by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT).

Section 62 and Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) lays down rules regarding admissibility of electronic records. Section 62 of BSA provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63.

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, states that any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document. Such Electronic record is admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible if the conditions mentioned under section 63 are satisfied.

The conditions as stated under section 63 of BSA are:

1. That the computer output was produced by the computer or device, during the period over which the computer or device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;
2. During the said period, information contained in the electronic record so derived was regularly fed into the computer or device in the ordinary course of the said activities; \
3. That throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or device was operating properly, in case for any period it was not operating properly or was out of operation, then such part of period, was not such to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) That the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or device in the ordinary course of the said activities.

Where such creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether in standalone mode (a device or system can function without being connected to something else) or on a computer system; or on a computer network; or on a computer resource; or through an intermediary, all such computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated as a single computer or communication device.

Section 63 of BSA modifies the erstwhile Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 18972 and expands its reach to electronic records in semiconductor memories, in addition to those on paper and stored/recorded/copied in optical or magnetic media. Furthermore, the provision extends its applicability to encompass 'any communication device,' broadening its scope. It also refines the definition of a computer or a communication device, providing it with a more comprehensive interpretation.

Certificate for Electronic Record

In any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides for Submission of a certificate along with the Electronic record for:

• (a) Identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
• (b) Giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a device.

To this effect, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, introduces a format for a two-part certificate to be submitted.

• Part A of the certificate should be filled by the party, who is in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) from which the electronic record is retrieved.

THE SCHEDULE Part A [See section 63(4)(c)] of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

• Part B of the certificate should be filled by the expert who retrieves the electronic record from the device.

THE SCHEDULE [See section 63(4)(c)] CERTIFICATE PART B Bharatiya Sakhsya Adhiniyam, 2023

The expert has to state the hash value of the electronic/ digital record and the algorithm through which it is obtained, in his certificate. Hash value is a unique numeric value that represents the contents of a file or data. The hash value of received data can be compared to the hash value of the original data to check if it's been altered. An algorithm is a mathematical function that converts data into a fixed-length string of characters. And SHA-256 is the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s recommended and officially approved standard algorithm.

Section 63 (5) states that information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form whether directly or with or without human intervention or by means of any appropriate equipment; and a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or device whether it was produced by it directly or with or without human intervention or by means of any appropriate equipment.

Examiner of Electronic Evidence

Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000: Section 79A empowers the Central Government to designate agencies or individuals as digital forensic experts. These experts are responsible for verifying and certifying the integrity and authenticity of electronic records presented in court. This provision ensures that certified authorities play a key role in the chain of custody for electronic evidence.

The declaration sought by Order XI Rule 6(3) in its essence encompasses all the requirements sought by Section 65B. It in fact does Section 65B one better as now it required the declaration pertaining to the electronic documents to be on oath and well detailed.

'Electronic Evidence' as defined in official government reports

Law Commission Report

185th Law Commission Report (2003)

The 185th Law Commission Report on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognized the increasing relevance of digital and electronic records in legal proceedings. It recommended amending the Indian Evidence Act to expressly incorporate provisions for the admissibility of electronic evidence, thereby ensuring that courts have a defined statutory framework to assess the authenticity, reliability, and evidentiary value of such materials. By highlighting the growing importance of electronic formats—such as digital documents, emails, and other forms of data stored or transmitted electronically—the Commission aimed to guide judges and practitioners on how to properly evaluate and use such evidence in both civil and criminal cases. This approach was intended to address emerging challenges where electronic records often constitute primary or critical evidence in disputes.

'Electronic Evidence' as defined in case law(s)

The admissibility of electronic evidence in India has been primarily shaped by landmark judgments interpreting Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 65B lays down specific conditions for admitting electronic records as evidence to ensure their integrity and authenticity.

Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana (2017)

In Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that objections regarding the mode or method of proof of electronic evidence must be raised at the time of marking the document as an exhibit, not at a later stage. The Court emphasized that if such objections are not raised promptly, the opposing party loses the opportunity to rectify any deficiencies.

State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praful B. Desai

In State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praful B. Desai, the Supreme Court held that evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence. This means that evidence, even in criminal matters, can also be by way of electronic records. This would include video- conferencing.”

Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors (2014)

In Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer, the Supreme Court ruled that electronic records are admissible only if they comply with Section 65B(4). It held that a certificate affirming the reliability and authenticity of the electronic record is mandatory. Without this certificate, the record cannot be admitted as evidence. This judgment overruled earlier inconsistencies and reaffirmed that statutory compliance is essential for admitting digital records.

Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court relaxed the rigid requirement for a certificate under Section 65B(4) in certain circumstances. It held that when a party does not possess the electronic device or record, the certificate may not be mandatory. This decision aimed to address practical challenges in producing electronic evidence, particularly in criminal cases.

Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) Overruled

The Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh had previously ruled that electronic evidence can be admitted without strict compliance with Section 65B. However, in Arjun Panditrao, the Court overruled Tomaso Bruno, declaring it per incuriam (bad law) for failing to recognize the mandatory nature of Section 65B.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Supreme Court provided much-needed clarity on Section 65B(4). It held that:

1. A certificate under Section 65B(4) is not required when the original electronic record (such as a mobile phone, hard disk, or server) is produced in court.
2. The certificate is mandatory when secondary copies of an electronic record (such as printouts or CD copies) are presented as evidence.
3. The ruling overturned Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), which had earlier allowed courts to relax the certificate requirement in cases where obtaining one was difficult.

STAGE OF FILING THE CERTIFICATE

State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath (2019)

In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath The Supreme Court held that the failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge-sheet is filed is not fatal to the prosecution. The need for production of such a certificate would arise when the electronic record is sought to be produced in evidence at the trial. It is at that stage that the necessity of the production of the certificate would arise.

These cases collectively establish that the Supreme Court’s rulings have clarified the legal framework for electronic evidence while also raising questions about the need for legislative reform. The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is now strictly mandatory, except where the original electronic record is produced. However, concerns persist regarding data privacy, evidence leakage, and the accessibility of certification mechanisms under the IT Act. Madras High Court Judgment on Section 79A (2024): A recent ruling by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court highlighted the role of Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which mandates that the Central Government notify Examiners of Electronic Evidence to authenticate digital records. The court noted that failing to appoint sufficient experts under Section 79A could hinder access to justice, as individuals may struggle to obtain the necessary certification required under Section 65B(4). The court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to expeditiously appoint such experts, especially in Tamil Nadu, where no appointments had been made at the time.

'Electronic Evidence' as defined in other official documents

Various official documents from government agencies underscore the significance and handling of electronic evidence:

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines

The RBI guidelines on cyber security framework in Banks emphasize the role of electronic transaction logs, encrypted communications, and audit trails as critical evidence to investigate financial irregularities.

---

Types of 'Electronic Evidence'

Slight differences and nuances in the concept

Electronic evidence encompasses a wide range of digital data that can be used in legal proceedings. It can be categorized into distinct types based on its form and purpose:

1. Documents: Digital contracts, scanned images, agreements, and electronically stored documents fall under this category. Courts treat these as documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they comply with Section 65B when presented as electronic records. Examples include PDFs, spreadsheets, and scanned signatures.
2. Communications: Electronic communications include emails, SMS, instant messaging services (e.g., WhatsApp), and social media posts. These forms of evidence have been central in cases involving commercial disputes, cyberstalking, and defamation. In State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged call records and electronic communications as admissible evidence.
3. Media: This includes photos, videos, and audio recordings that are stored or transmitted digitally. Media files are often submitted as primary evidence in criminal cases, particularly in proving events, locations, or identities. The admissibility of such evidence was reaffirmed in Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), where the court accepted CCTV footage as critical evidence.
4. Metadata: Metadata refers to data about the data, such as timestamps, file creation or modification dates, GPS coordinates, and user details. Metadata is critical for verifying the authenticity and integrity of electronic records. Courts often rely on metadata to establish timelines or verify tampering in electronic evidence.

Variations/multiple meanings in terms of usage in research and per civil society

• Research usage: In academic and technical research, electronic evidence is discussed primarily within the context of cybersecurity and digital forensics. Researchers focus on how digital footprints, encrypted communications, and data recovery techniques can aid in investigations. Discussions often revolve around technical challenges, such as ensuring the integrity of evidence during retrieval and analysis.
• Civil society: In civil society, electronic evidence raises concerns about privacy, surveillance, and the ethical collection of digital data. Advocacy groups and privacy activists highlight risks associated with state surveillance and misuse of electronic evidence in ways that may violate fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The intersection of technological advancements and societal expectations creates a complex debate regarding the ethical use of electronic records in legal systems.

Functional variations across regions/states/High Courts

The admissibility and treatment of electronic evidence have shown variations across Indian High Courts. While Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is uniformly applicable, the interpretation and enforcement of its requirements have differed:

1. Strict Compliance: Some courts have strictly enforced the mandatory certification under Section 65B. In Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that electronic records without a Section 65B certificate are inadmissible, leaving no room for flexibility.
2. Flexible Approach: Other courts, particularly in criminal matters, have taken a practical approach. In Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), the Supreme Court held that when the original electronic device is not in the possession of the party, the certificate may not be mandatory.
3. State-Level Variations: High Courts have issued varying guidelines regarding the submission and certification of electronic records. For instance, courts in states with advanced digital infrastructure may place greater reliance on forensic analysis to verify electronic evidence.

Use of different nomenclature across regions/states/High Courts

The terms digital evidence, electronic record, and cyber evidence are often used interchangeably in legal and forensic contexts. However, their nuanced meanings may differ depending on regional practices, statutory interpretation, and jurisdictional focus.

1. Electronic Record: Defined explicitly under Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the term refers to "data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or computer-generated microfiche." Courts across India use this statutory term in line with the IT Act for matters involving electronic records as admissible evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Digital Evidence: This term is more commonly employed in forensic investigations and refers to evidence stored, transmitted, or processed in digital formats, including emails, metadata, databases, and multimedia files. Forensic specialists and courts recognize digital evidence as vital in cybercrime cases and cases involving fraud, where data integrity and authenticity are critical.
3. Cyber Evidence: Used primarily in cybercrime investigations, the term emphasizes evidence related to online activities such as hacking, phishing, malware, and digital footprints. Courts dealing with cyber offenses, particularly under Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, often refer to such materials as cyber evidence.

Regional and Jurisdictional Variations

Different High Courts and jurisdictions across India have applied these terms with subtle distinctions:

• In metropolitan courts, dealing frequently with cybercrimes and advanced technological disputes, terms like cyber evidence and digital evidence are more prevalent.
• In smaller jurisdictions or conventional disputes, courts may refer more generally to electronic records as defined under the IT Act and Evidence Act.

These variances reflect differences in technical understanding, resource availability, and caseload focus, requiring the judiciary to adopt a uniform approach to interpreting Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Case Law:

• Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) clarified the admissibility of electronic records by strictly interpreting the term electronic record.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) further reaffirmed the mandatory compliance with Section 65B.

---

International Experience

How other countries define, operationalize, and collect data regarding the concept

• United States: The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) govern the admissibility of electronic evidence in U.S. courts.
  • Rule 901 requires that electronic evidence must be authenticated by proving it is what it purports to be. This is typically done through witness testimony, forensic certification, or metadata analysis.
  • Rule 1002, known as the "Best Evidence Rule," mandates that the original electronic document or a certified duplicate be presented as evidence.
  • Chain of custody is strictly enforced, requiring clear documentation of every stage in the collection, transfer, and storage of evidence.

Case Law:

• Lorraine v Markel American Insurance Co. (2007) laid down guidelines for admitting electronic evidence under the FRE.

• European Union: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) focuses on safeguarding privacy and regulating how electronic data is collected, stored, and processed. This has a significant impact on the admissibility of electronic evidence:
  • Any evidence collected in violation of GDPR provisions can be challenged for infringing privacy rights.
  • Courts in the EU apply a rigorous standard to ensure that digital evidence complies with both admissibility rules and data protection norms.

Deviations from Indian practice/conceptualization relating to 'Electronic Evidence'

• United States: The U.S. emphasizes strict adherence to the chain of custody, ensuring that electronic evidence is accounted for at every stage, from collection to presentation in court. This meticulous approach minimizes the risk of tampering and enhances reliability. In contrast, Indian practice has evolved to allow greater flexibility in certain cases, particularly after Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh (2018).
• European Union: The EU places a heavy emphasis on data protection through GDPR. Electronic evidence that compromises individual privacy can be excluded, even if it is otherwise relevant. Indian courts do not yet have equivalent privacy-centric exclusions, although concerns under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution are emerging in the context of digital privacy.

Any learnings or best practices

• Digital Forensics: Countries such as the U.S. and U.K. follow robust standards for the collection and analysis of digital evidence using certified tools and techniques. Best practices include:
  • Ensuring the chain of custody remains unbroken.
  • Using forensic tools such as EnCase, FTK, and XRY for data extraction and preservation.
• Blockchain Technology: Some jurisdictions are exploring the use of blockchain technology to create immutable records of electronic evidence. Blockchain ensures tamper-proof storage and provides clear audit trails, which can help strengthen the admissibility of evidence.

Examples:

• Estonia has implemented blockchain-based digital systems for government records, ensuring both security and transparency.
• In the U.S., blockchain is being tested in certain legal frameworks for securing digital evidence in court.

---

Appearance of 'Electronic Evidence' in Databases

Notification of Forensic Labs as "examiner of Electronic Evidence" under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act 2000.The Ministry of electronics and information technology, government of India has released a notification of a Forensic labs as 'examiner of electronic evidence' under section 79A of the Information Technology act. This is a valuable database under evidence law and admissibility.

Indian legal databases like SCC Online and Manupatra maintain extensive case law records involving electronic evidence.

International legal databases such as Westlaw or LexisNexis provide global case laws and research articles on the use of electronic evidence.

---

Research that Engages with 'Electronic Evidence'

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/23/electronic-evidence-in-focus-navigating-legal-shifts-in-the-law-on-electronic-evidence-under-the-bsa-2023/

Digital Evidence at Trial in India: Challenges Regarding The Reliability of Electronic Documents by KVK Santhy

Electronic evidence refers to any information stored or transmitted in digital form that can be presented in court during legal proceedings. This includes a wide range of materials such as emails, digital photographs, transaction logs, word processing documents, spreadsheets, internet browser histories, databases, and more. The courts evaluate whether the digital evidence is relevant, authentic, and admissible. Initially, courts were skeptical about admitting digital evidence due to concerns about its fragility and susceptibility to manipulation. However, over time, digital evidence has been given the status of corroboratory evidence, with the understanding that it can be easily destroyed, modified, or duplicated, and is often more voluminous than traditional forms of evidence.

Digital forensics include the process of interpreting and verifying what the electronic document means when accessed through appropriate systems (e.g., a hard drive read through a compatible operating system). Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act requires certification to accompany electronic records to ensure that the evidence presented is authentic and has not been altered, with the person providing the certification playing a role similar to that of an expert witness. By using digital forensics, courts can ensure that electronic evidence is reliable, even though it is inherently susceptible to manipulation.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: CHALLENGES FACED WITH DIGITAL FORENSICS Ms. Sadhna Gupta & Ms. Meghali Das

The article "Criminal Investigation of Electronic Evidence: Challenges Faced with Digital Forensics" by Sadhna Gupta and Meghali Das explores the complexities of digital forensics in India’s criminal justice system. It highlights the increasing prevalence of cybercrime and the challenges law enforcement agencies face in collecting, preserving, and analyzing electronic evidence. The study identifies key problems such as the lack of trained personnel, outdated forensic tools, jurisdictional hurdles, and the absence of standardized procedures. The reliance on forensic labs like NCFL, which are overburdened and insufficient in number, further delays justice.

The article also discusses the gaps in Indian law concerning digital forensics, particularly in relation to search, seizure, and admissibility of electronic evidence. It emphasizes the need for specialized forensic experts, updated technological infrastructure, and legal reforms to bridge the gaps between evolving cyber threats and investigative capabilities. Drawing on case law and legislative developments, the study suggests adopting international best practices, enhancing inter-agency cooperation, and implementing structured training programs.

The authors argue that a uniform digital forensic framework, better funding, and inter-state cooperation are essential to improving India’s ability to combat cybercrime effectively while ensuring the integrity and admissibility of electronic evidence in courts.

SECTION 65B(4) EVIDENCE ACT: DESPITE SC DECISION IN 'ARJUN PANDITRAO', UNCERTAINTY LOOMS AROUND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE by TRISHA CHANDRAN

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) aimed to clarify Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reaffirming that a certificate is mandatory for admitting secondary electronic records. However, rather than settling the law, it has deepened ambiguities, particularly regarding the stage of certification, judicial discretion, and appellate review.

While Arjun Panditrao overruled Shafhi Mohammad (2018) and declared Tomaso Bruno (2015) per incuriam, it failed to reconcile its position with Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017), which held that objections to non-certification cannot be raised at the appellate stage. Further, the ruling contradicts itself—first asserting that the certificate must accompany the charge sheet but later allowing production at any stage before trial completion, leaving trial courts uncertain on enforcement.

Internationally, UK law repealed its equivalent provision in 1995, and Canada presumes digital evidence authentic unless challenged. In contrast, India’s rigid approach risks excluding crucial electronic records, particularly when certification is impractical or inaccessible.

To resolve these issues, legislative intervention is necessary to establish clear guidelines on certification, recognize alternative authentication mechanisms (hash values, blockchain), and permit exceptions for third-party records. Until then, procedural hurdles will continue to obstruct justice rather than ensure authenticity, undermining the very purpose of Section 65B.

---

Challenges

• Under the substituted Order XI Rule 6 applicable to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it is required for the witness to give a declaration in detail regarding the electronic record that is being produced before the court for inspection. Even though a separate provision was introduced for the admissibility of electronic records in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, most commercial courts across multiple jurisdictions are following the practice of admitting such electronic records when the witness complies with the requirements of the provision encapsulated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whereas, in a few commercial courts in Bangalore and Delhi, the practice is to comply with both i.e., declaration on oath as per Order XI Rule 6(3) applicable to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as well as provision of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

• Authentication: Ensuring that electronic records are genuine and not tampered with is a significant challenge.
• Privacy concerns: The collection of digital evidence often intersects with privacy laws.
• Chain of custody: Maintaining the integrity of digital evidence throughout the legal process is crucial.

---

Way Ahead

• Legal reforms: Indian laws on electronic evidence need further updates to align with global standards on data integrity, privacy, and forensics.
• Technology integration: Introducing blockchain and AI into evidence handling systems could improve reliability and reduce tampering.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam represents a significant step forward in addressing the challenges posed by digital evidence. However, the rise of deepfakes and AI requires continuous adaptation and improvement of legal frameworks. While the new Act provides a more robust foundation for handling electronic evidence, further reforms are necessary to ensure that the legal system can effectively counter the threats posed by these advanced technologies. Without such reforms, the risk of manipulated evidence undermining the integrity of legal proceedings remains a significant concern.

---

Related Terms

• Digital Forensics
• Cybercrime
• E-discovery
• Metadata
• Data Protection

---