ABSTRACT
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), is a defining act of legislation in the process of electronic evidence within the legal framework of India, replacing the colonial era Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This paper critically discusses evolution, admissibility and challenges regarding electronic evidence with respect to the BSA, 2023, particularly by the procedural nuances and judgements. It makes a point of the continued reliance on certificates such as authentication, the integration of technological safeguards, and the presumed mechanisms of the new statute. The research examines the judiciary’s handling of technical barriers and ambiguous interpretation in the light of key Supreme Court and High Court judgments before and after the BSA. Furthermore, it looks at issues of systemic nature including digital infrastructure, evidentiary integrity and the enforcement agencies’ training deficit. By focusing on comparison with jurisdictions such as the UK and the US, the research proposes a limited, tech willing, rights sensitive approach to digital evidence which sits comfortably with procedural rigor and the realities of the digital age. This research offers to enhance the implementation of electronic evidence provisions through legislative and institutional refinements in the digital justice era.
Keywords: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Electronic Evidence, Digital Evidence, Admissibility, Data Authenticity, Forensic Evidence.
INTRODUCTION
In the digital age no longer can there be no communication, no trade and no governance. Instead, the volume of digital information produced, circulated and stored is growing exponentially. As the internet, smartphones, cloud computing and blockchain-based platforms have made their appearance into transaction, transactions that were electronically conducted have erased paper-based records, leaving in their impresses an intricate web of digital footprints. Electronic records, once only means of communication, now are information and evidence primary sources, both in civil and criminal legal proceedings from emails and instant messages to financial records, and beyond.[1]
Breadth defined as including any probative information stored or transmitted in a digital form, the proliferation of electronic evidence has had very significant impact on the administration of justice. Admitting, authenticating and assessing such evidence has become one of the growing challenges faced by the legal systems all over the world, including the Indian system. This is because as commercial disputes, matrimonial litigation, cybercrime prosecutions and even constitutional challenges become increasingly based on electronic data of probative value, the value of such materials has shifted from the fringe to the front and center of adjudication. In regulatory compliance domains also, the evidentiary shift has proceeded to similar intensity because electronic records are searched for following financial, environmental, and corporate governance standards.
It has necessitated doctrinal, procedural and infrastructural change for legislatures and courts to re-evaluate some basic concepts, such as “document”, “signature”, “original”, and “secondary evidence”. This is acknowledged in a legislative way by the BSA, 2023, which supersedes the colonial era Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It aims at reconciling evidentiary standards to requisite of digital governance and electronic evidence. But the legal community remains mired in the difficult questions over how, if at all, the authenticity, integrity, privacy and procedural bars to admission apply to electronic materials used by the courts, highlighting both the potential and peril of judicial trust in electronic materials.[2]
[1] Samaddar, Samrat, & Roy, Ankita. (2024). Critical Analysis of the Indian Evidence Act in Accordance with BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 7, 152-166.
[2]Gawade, R. K., & Karanjule, S. K. (2024). Replacement of Old Criminal Laws by New: Reformative Step to Boost Criminal Justice System of India. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 7, 2105-2113.