Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes a nation‑wide framework for the collection, preservation, authentication and admissibility of electronic and documentary evidence in all courts of India. By codifying procedures that were previously scattered across the Information Technology Act, 2000, Supreme Court pronouncements and disparate state rules, the Act creates a single, legally binding standard that courts, law‑enforcement agencies and private litigants must follow. Its uniqueness lies in the explicit statutory mandate for digital‑record retention periods and a uniform chain‑of‑custody protocol, which together aim to curb evidentiary disputes that have historically prolonged litigation. ## Origins and Legislative History The impetus for the Act can be traced to the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Anvar v. Gulam Mohd., which highlighted the inadequacy of existing provisions to address electronic evidence. Subsequent amendments to the Information Technology Act in 2008 and 2011 introduced limited provisions, but the lack of a comprehensive procedural code persisted. In response, the Ministry of Law and Justice drafted the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam in early 2022, consulting the Law Commission, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and the Office of the Chief Justice of India. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 12 March 2023, debated over three sessions, and received presidential assent on 15 August 2023, coinciding with Independence Day. It came into force on 1 January 2024, as stipulated in Section 2(1). ## How the Mechanism Operates Section 3 of the Act defines “electronic evidence” to include e‑mail, SMS, instant‑messenger logs, cloud‑based documents and metadata, each identified by a unique hash value generated at the point of capture. Section 5 mandates that the custodian—whether a corporate IT department, a government agency or an individual—store the original file and its hash in a secure, tamper‑evident repository for the period prescribed in Schedule A (e‑mail: ten years; SMS: five years; social‑media posts: three years). Section 7 outlines admissibility criteria: the evidence must be authenticated by a certified digital forensic expert, the hash must match the original, and a chain‑of‑custody log, recorded in the NJDG, must be unbroken. Section 9 prescribes a digital signature requirement for every entry in the custody log, ensuring non‑repudiation. Non‑compliance triggers penalties under Section 12, ranging from a fine of ₹1 lakh for minor infractions to imprisonment of up to two years for deliberate tampering. ## Key Provisions - Section 4(1): Courts may issue a “Preservation Order” compelling any party to retain specified electronic records pending trial. - Section 6(2): The Central Government may issue detailed guidelines on encryption standards, currently aligned with the Indian Standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001:2022. - Section 8(3): Evidence obtained without a preservation order is presumptively inadmissible unless the producing party demonstrates “unavoidable loss” with corroborating affidavits. - Schedule B: Lists mandatory metadata fields—timestamp, IP address, device identifier—that must accompany each electronic document submitted as evidence. - Section 11: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue “Uniform Evidentiary Directions” to resolve inter‑jurisdictional conflicts, a power exercised in the 2024 State of Karnataka v. ABC Corp. case concerning cross‑border data retrieval. ## Current Implementation The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued the “Digital Evidence Management Rules, 2024” on 20 February 2024, operationalising the Act’s procedural requirements. As of September 2024, 28 High Courts have integrated the NJDG portal for real‑time evidence submission, and the Delhi High Court reported a 22 % reduction in pre‑trial adjournments attributable to streamlined evidentiary handling. Training modules developed by the National Judicial Academy have reached over 4,500 judges and magistrates, with certification exams administered quarterly. However, a 2025 audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General noted uneven compliance among lower courts, prompting a remedial directive for capacity building in district tribunals. ## Significance and International Context By imposing fixed retention periods and a verifiable chain of custody, the Act directly addresses the evidentiary bottlenecks that plagued high‑profile cases such as the NEET‑UG protest FIRs, where disputed digital communications delayed judicial scrutiny. The uniform standards also facilitate cross‑border cooperation, as the hash‑based authentication aligns with the United Nations’ “Guidelines for the Use of Digital Evidence” (2021). Comparatively, the United States’ Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901 and the United Kingdom’s Civil Procedure Rules Part 31 adopt similar hash‑verification and preservation concepts, but the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is distinctive in