Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 2023
The new law of evidence — replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 governs what evidence is admissible in Indian courts. It modernises the 1872 Act by expanding recognition of electronic and digital records, streamlining categories of evidence, and clarifying burden of proof.
Key provisions
Section 2 — Definitions
Includes electronic records (email, SMS, WhatsApp, server logs, cloud data) as documents.
Sections 3–4 — Facts in issue and relevancy
Only relevant facts and facts in issue are admissible.
Sections 61–65 — Documentary evidence
Primary and secondary evidence, admissibility of copies, and proof of contents of documents.
Sections 62–63 — Electronic records
Electronic records treated on par with paper documents; certified copy (Sec. 63) equivalent to Sec. 65B CrPC certificate under old Act.
Sections 101–114 — Burden of proof
General rule: whoever asserts a fact must prove it; specific presumptions for legitimacy, dowry death, terrorism offences.
Electronic evidence made easier
BSA gives electronic records full status as documents. A certificate under Section 63 authenticates the record and identifies the device from which it originated. This applies to WhatsApp chats, emails, CCTV footage, database extracts and server logs.
Confessions and statements
Confessions to a police officer remain inadmissible (Sec. 22). Statements made in police custody are admissible only to the extent they lead to discovery of a fact (Sec. 23) — mirroring the old Section 27.
Scope and applicability
The BSA governs relevance, admissibility and proof in judicial proceedings from 1 July 2024. It addresses oral, documentary and electronic evidence and must be read with procedural law and applicable transition rules.
Key definitions
- Evidence
- Oral statements permitted by the court and documents, including electronic or digital records, produced for inspection.
- Burden of proof
- The obligation to prove a fact asserted, allocated by the statute and context.
Practical procedure
- 1Preserve the original record and metadata.
- 2Document how an electronic record was created, stored and obtained.
- 3Identify relevance, authenticity and any statutory certificate requirement before filing.
- 4Use the court's procedural rules for production, marking and proof.
Deadlines and timing
- The BSA does not create one general filing deadline; the governing civil or criminal procedure and court directions control when evidence must be produced.
Old law and current law
| Earlier framework | Current position |
|---|---|
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | BSA updates terminology and expressly integrates electronic and digital records while reorganising the earlier framework. |
Practical examples
- A screenshot alone may not establish who created a message or whether it was altered.
- A relevant document can still require formal proof before the court relies on it.
Who typically needs this
- Lawyers and litigants presenting evidence in court
- Investigating officers collecting digital evidence
- Corporate teams handling e-discovery and audit trails
- Judges, law students and forensic experts
Frequently asked questions
Are WhatsApp chats admissible as evidence?
Yes. Under BSA, electronic records including WhatsApp chats are admissible if produced along with a Section 63 certificate from a responsible person identifying the device and the record.
Is confession to police admissible?
No. Section 22 BSA continues the rule that confessions made to a police officer are not admissible. Only the portion that leads to the discovery of a fact (Sec. 23) can be proved.
What is the difference between primary and secondary evidence?
Primary evidence is the document itself. Secondary evidence includes certified copies, mechanical copies and oral accounts of contents, admissible only in specific circumstances listed in the Act.
Related laws
Have a specific question about BSA 2023?
Kanoon-AI gives free, plain-English legal information grounded in Indian statutes and case law. Not a substitute for a lawyer.
Ask the AI assistant