Under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a printout, copy or other output of an electronic record is admissible as a document only if it is accompanied by a certificate in the form set out in the Schedule, signed both by the person in charge of the device or the relevant activity and by an expert. The certificate must be submitted with the record "at each instance" it is offered for admission. Section 63 replaced section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the rule built around 65B in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar still explains how it works, but the new section adds a prescribed form, a second signatory and a hash value that the old law never asked for.
Where do the BSA provisions on electronic evidence sit?
Electronic evidence runs through the whole Adhiniyam rather than sitting in one place. The definition of "document" in section 2(1)(d) expressly includes electronic and digital records, and "evidence" in section 2(1)(e) covers statements given electronically and electronic or digital records produced for the court.
| BSA | Indian Evidence Act | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 2(1)(d) | 3 | "Document" includes electronic and digital records |
| 39(2) | 45A | Opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence is relevant |
| 57, Explanations 4 to 7 | 62 | When an electronic record is primary evidence |
| 61 | New | Electronic record not to be denied admissibility for being electronic |
| 62 | 65A | Contents of electronic records proved under section 63 |
| 63 | 65B | Conditions and certificate for computer output |
Section 61 is new. It says nothing in the Adhiniyam shall deny admissibility to an electronic or digital record on the ground that it is electronic, and that such a record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect as any other document. The words "subject to section 63" are the hinge: equality of treatment comes with the certificate requirement attached.
The Explanations to section 57 are equally important. Where an electronic record is stored simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each file is primary evidence. An electronic record produced from proper custody is primary evidence unless it is disputed. Where a video recording is stored and transmitted at the same time, each stored recording is primary evidence, and automated storage in multiple places in a computer resource, including temporary files, is also primary evidence.
What did the Supreme Court decide under section 65B?
Four decisions shaped the law under the old Act, and examiners still ask them because the BSA was drafted with them in mind.
| Year | Case | Bench | Holding in brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu | 2 judges | Call records could be proved under sections 63 and 65 irrespective of section 65B |
| 2014 | Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | 3 judges | Section 65B is a complete code; the certificate is a condition of admissibility; Navjot Sandhu overruled on this point |
| 2018 | Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh | 2 judges | Certificate is procedural and can be relaxed for a party not in possession of the device |
| 2020 | Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal | 3 judges | Certificate is a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence; Shafhi Mohammad overruled |
Arjun Panditrao is the case to know in detail. It affirmed Anvar P.V. but clarified it in four ways that still matter. No certificate is needed when the original is produced, for instance when the owner of a laptop or mobile phone steps into the witness box and proves the device. Where the computer is part of a system or network that cannot be brought to court, the only route is the computer output with a certificate. The certificate may be produced at any stage before the trial is over, provided an accused is not prejudiced. And a party who has done everything possible to obtain the certificate from someone it cannot control may apply to the court to order its production. The Court also issued directions for preserving call records and other electronic records seized during investigation.
What exactly does section 63 require?
Section 63 makes any information in an electronic record that is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory, and produced by a computer or any communication device, a "computer output" that is deemed to be a document and admissible without production of the original, if the conditions of the section are met.
The four conditions in section 63(2) are carried over from section 65B(2), with "communication device" added throughout:
- The output was produced during a period when the device was used regularly to create, store or process information for an activity regularly carried on by the person in lawful control of it.
- Information of that kind was regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course of that activity.
- Throughout the material part of the period the device was operating properly, or any malfunction did not affect the record or its accuracy.
- The information in the record reproduces or is derived from information fed into the device in the ordinary course of that activity.
Section 63(3) treats all devices used for the activity over the period as a single device, whether they worked standalone, on a computer system, on a network, on a computer resource, or through an intermediary. The reference to an intermediary is new, and it matters for records held on cloud services and messaging platforms.
Section 63(4) then requires a certificate that identifies the record and how it was produced, gives particulars of the device, and deals with the section 63(2) conditions. It must 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, and it must be in the form specified in the Schedule. Statements may be made to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief.
What does the certificate in the Schedule look like?
The Schedule prescribes a two-part certificate, and the two parts are signed by different people.
Part A is filled by the party producing the record. It identifies the source by ticking one of the listed types (computer or storage media, DVR, mobile, flash drive, CD or DVD, server, cloud, or other), gives the make, model, colour and serial number, and records an identifier such as IMEI, UIN, UID, MAC or cloud ID. The signatory affirms that the device was under lawful control for regular activities, was working properly, and that the information was fed in during the ordinary course of business, and states whether the device is owned, maintained, managed or operated by the signatory. Part A also records the hash value of the record and the algorithm used, such as SHA256, with the hash report enclosed, and is dated with the time in IST.
Part B is filled by the expert. It repeats the identification of the source device and the hash value with its algorithm and hash report. Matching hash values in the two parts give the court an objective check that the record produced is the record that was extracted.
What changed from section 65B, and what is still unsettled?
The practical changes are four. The form of the certificate is now prescribed rather than left to drafting. There are two signatories, one of whom must be an expert. A hash value is part of the form. And the certificate goes with the record at each instance it is submitted, so a record tendered at different stages or in different proceedings needs a certificate each time.
Some questions have no settled answer yet, and it is safer in an exam to identify them than to assert a resolution. Section 63 does not define "expert", and section 39 is the general provision on expert opinion, with section 39(2) making the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relevant. How Explanation 5 to section 57, which treats records from proper custody as primary evidence unless disputed, fits with the certificate requirement for computer output is another question courts will have to work through.
Also keep the transition rule in mind. Under section 170(2) BSA, any trial, inquiry, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues to be dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act. In those matters section 65B and Arjun Panditrao still govern directly.
Three scenarios to test your understanding
Suppose a complainant in a cheating case prints WhatsApp messages from her own phone and files the printouts. The printouts are computer output, so they need a section 63 certificate, with Part A signed by her as the person in control of the phone and Part B by an expert. If she instead produces the phone itself and proves it in the witness box, the device is the original and Arjun Panditrao's reasoning suggests no certificate is needed for that route.
Suppose the police copy CCTV footage from a shop's DVR onto a pen drive. The shopkeeper, as the person in charge of the DVR, is the natural signatory of Part A, and an expert signs Part B. Recording the hash value at the time of copying, rather than months later, is what makes the two parts meaningful.
Suppose an accused wants to rely on call detail records held by a telecom company that refuses to give a certificate. Following Arjun Panditrao, the accused can apply to the court to direct production of the certificate by the person who is in a position to give it.
How is section 63 BSA asked in exams?
Prelims questions focus on correspondence and case law: which section replaced section 65B, which case overruled Shafhi Mohammad, the bench strength in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao, and which provision of the BSA is entirely new. The two-part structure of the Schedule and the presence of a hash value are natural targets for statement-based questions.
Mains problems usually involve CCTV, phone records or social media posts. A complete answer classifies the evidence as primary or secondary, applies section 63 with the Schedule certificate, cites Arjun Panditrao on when the certificate may be produced, and notes section 170(2) if the facts suggest a trial pending before July 2024. A frequent mistake is writing that a certificate is needed even when the original device is produced. Another is citing section 65B in a problem clearly set under the BSA.
Electronic evidence is often the core of cyber crime complaints. The LegalFirms guide on reporting cyber crime in India explains what a complainant should preserve at the outset, and the cyber law questions on Ask a Lawyer are a place to put a specific question to a verified advocate.
Key points to remember
- Section 63 BSA replaced section 65B of the Evidence Act, and section 62 replaced section 65A.
- Section 61 is new: an electronic record cannot be refused admission merely for being electronic, but it remains subject to section 63.
- The Schedule certificate has Part A, signed by the party, and Part B, signed by an expert, each with the hash value of the record.
- The certificate must accompany the record at each instance it is submitted for admission.
- Under Arjun Panditrao, no certificate is required where the original device is produced and proved.
- The certificate may be produced at any stage before the trial ends, and a party unable to get it may ask the court to direct its production.
- Proceedings pending on 1 July 2024 continue under the Indian Evidence Act because of section 170(2) BSA.
Where to go next
Read the full text of section 63 with the Schedule on the BSA bare act and compare it line by line with section 65B in the Indian Evidence Act. Then attempt the BSA mock tests, where the case law on electronic records appears regularly.