Admissibility of electronic records
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with admissibility of electronic records. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, 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 (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be 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.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:---
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or Communication 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;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer or Communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or Communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether--
(a) in standalone mode; or
(b) on a computer system; or
(c) on a computer network; or
(d) on a computer resource enabling information creation or providing information processing and storage; or
(e) through an intermediary,
all the computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer or communication device; and references in this section to a computer or communication device shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:--
(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 as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
(5) For the purposes of this section,---
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment or by other electronic means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3).
Section 63, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 65B Admissibility of electronic records Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A certificate under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of an electronic record. Anvar P.V. is affirmed; Shafhi Mohammad is overruled on this point. The certificate may be produced later if the electronic record is already before the court, subject to the trial court's directions.
On this section: BSA 63 is the successor electronic-records provision; Arjun Panditrao's certificate rule carries forward.
-
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 65B is a special law for electronic records. Secondary evidence under sections 63/65 cannot be used to prove an electronic record if the 65B procedure is not followed. A 65B(4) certificate is required.
On this section: BSA 63 succeeds IEA 65B; Anvar's special-law holding is the starting point, qualified by Arjun Panditrao.
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.
On this section: Mandatory requirement of a certificate for admissibility of electronic records.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Certification requirement for electronic records; video recording must be certified to be admissible as evidence
-
V. Sivankutty vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliamentary privileges and immunities granted under Article 194 of the Constitution are functional in nature, designed to enable elected representatives to perform their legislative duties without hindrance. These privileges do not extend to criminal acts such as destruction of public property, and no elected representative can claim exemption from the application of criminal law. Acts of vandalism and destruction of public property committed within the precincts of the legislature are not protected by parliamentary privilege and can be prosecuted without prior sanction of the Speaker. The withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be evaluated not merely on the basis of good faith but also on whether it subserves the administration of justice and does not cause manifest injustice. In cases involving destruction of public property and breach of public trust by elected representatives, the court must scrutinize the gravity of the offence and its impact on public life before granting consent to withdrawal.
On this section: Section 65B requires certification for electronic records. The Court noted that evidentiary issues regarding certification are to be determined at trial, not at the withdrawal stage
-
Punit Gupta vs Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment consists of the following propositions: (1) Contempt jurisdiction requires wilful, knowing, intentional, and deliberate disobedience of an unambiguous court order; a plausible alternative interpretation given to the respondent negates wilful disobedience. (2) When a court judgment uses language such as 'permit to work and pay regular salary as and when it accrues,' it does not encompass a mandate for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the date of original termination unless expressly stated. (3) Back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement; they require express court direction. (4) When a court grants liberty to an administrative authority to pass a fresh reasoned order, and such order is passed on the basis of a genuine factual conclusion that an entire selection process is vitiated and segregation of candidates is impossible, the requirement to provide individual hearing to affected parties may not apply—as per exceptions established in O. Chakradhar and subsequent precedents. (5) The correctness of factual conclusions regarding viability of segregation is not to be reviewed in contempt proceedings but in substantive writ jurisdiction. (6) Contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to grant fresh relief or reinterpret original judgments beyond their plain language; it is confined to enforcement of clear, unambiguous directions.
On this section: Authentication of electronic evidence and computer-generated records; applied to examination data certificates
-
Anchar Sekh vs Laxmi Tunga
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged recruitment irregularities and manipulation, mass interim termination of appointed employees should not be directed without: (i) completion of investigation establishing fraud through cogent evidence; (ii) proper examination of the admissibility of electronically stored evidence under applicable Rules of Evidence; (iii) clear demonstration of gross illegality at the interim stage; (iv) provision of due process and opportunity of hearing to affected employees; and (v) comprehensive consideration of the proportionality and necessity of such drastic action. Statutory bodies must exercise their powers independently and not merely at the direction of courts. Division Benches of High Courts should conduct substantive hearings on complex recruitment disputes involving multiple litigants rather than piece-meal interim determinations.
On this section: Admissibility of electronically stored data and digital evidence; necessity to establish authenticity and integrity of electronic records before relying upon them
-
Jagdish Chandra vs C.b.i.
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Hard discs on which intercepted telephone conversations have been recorded are electronic records and therefore documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) read with Section 207(v) CrPC. The prosecution is obliged to furnish to the accused copies of only such documents that it proposes to rely upon as indicated in the charge sheet or of those already sent to the court during investigation. At the pre-charge stage, the trial court cannot direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than those which it proposes to rely upon. However, where the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution is relying upon certain documents, the accused must be given access to those documents. In the instant case, the scope of the APFSL examination was to certify that the hard discs were properly functioning and that the calls copied on to the CDs were true copies of the original recordings in the hard discs. Only to this extent can it be said that the hard discs are being relied upon by the prosecution. The certification in terms of Section 65B(4) EA does not obviate the statutory requirement under Section 207(v) of providing to the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document. Therefore, the accused should be permitted to listen to the original recordings of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution by having the said original recordings played directly from the hard discs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, their counsel and the learned Judge.
On this section: Admissibility of electronic records and computer output; conditions for admissibility without production of original
-
Dilip Kumar Khater vs Concept 2 Designs LLP
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In the absence of a registered lease deed for a term exceeding one year, a tenant cannot claim a long-term fixed tenure based on alleged oral agreements, and the tenancy is deemed month-to-month, terminable by notice.
On this section: Authentication of electronic records (ledger accounts).
-
PRIYA RAO vs NIL
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 65B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple persons are admitted as Class-1 heirs in a petition for a succession certificate, the certificate must be issued jointly to all such heirs regardless of informal internal arrangements, unless a legal relinquishment is recorded.
On this section: Admissibility of electronic records/certificates.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… 05.10.2024 Ex.P22 is the Downloaded copy of Statement of Accounts of Assets held with HDFC Mutual Funds under Folio No.19350570/74 dated 21.10.2024 Ex.P23 is the Original Affidavit of Assets of the deceased filed along with the Probate Petition dated 28.11.2024 Ex.P24 is the Original Certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 of Mr.Namasivayam dated 28.11.2024. Ex.C1 is the consent affidavit filed by 1st respondent Sekhar Venkatachalam Ex.C2 is the consent affidavit filed by 2nd respondent Uma Vasanthakumar Ex.C3 is the consent affidavit filed by 3rd Respondent Uttara Valli Natarajan Ex.C4 is …
-
… Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the State's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and subsequent investigation, and that no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR. It is submitted that the alleged CCTV footage is inadmissible as evidence in the absence of certification under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. No handwriting analysis has been conducted to connect the Applicant with the forged documents, and no misappropriated amount has been recovered from him or traced to his bank accounts. The Applicant further claims to suffer from serious medical ailments, including uncontrolled …
-
… These documents were in the custody of his accountant Mr. Sunil Swamy. 8. On the other hand the defendant contention that, the email correspondence and bank statement are nor supported by a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. Non production of certificate at the stage is not a ground to reject the application. The certificate is compulsory for marking of the documents. At this stage, the question is whether the additional document produced by the plaintiff cannot be allowed, whether it is helpful …
Questions about Section 63
What have the courts held on Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal (14 Jul 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 65B, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BSA 63 is the successor electronic-records provision; Arjun Panditrao's certificate rule carries forward. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 63, section 63 BSA, section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa 63 certificate and bsa 63(4). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal (14 Jul 2020).
What should I read with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IEA 65B (Admissibility of electronic records), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, commonly called electronic evidence or 65b certificate, and cited as BSA 63, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 119. Court may presume existence of certain facts673 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.