Two Signatures, One Truth: Recalibrating Electronic Evidence Under The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 7
- 2 min read
Two Signatures, One Truth: Recalibrating Electronic Evidence Under The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - A Proportionate “Either-Or-Plus” Standard For Electronic Records Under The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Sneha Narula, LL.B., Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
Most disputes now leave a digital trail - WhatsApp chats, emails, CCTV clips etc. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognises this reality: Section 61, BSA places electronic records on the same footing as paper, and Sections 62–63, BSA set out how their contents are proved. Trial practice, however, is developing a habit. Alongside the statutory certificate that travels with a “computer output”, courts and counsel increasingly expect a second sign-off, either a platform-custodian letter confirming server-side details or a forensic expert’s note on hashes, extraction method, and signs of tampering. This paper terms this the “two-signatures” expectation. Two brief definitions keep the discussion grounded. The certificate pathway is used when a party relies on a copy/derivative rather than the original device; admissibility usually rides on a certificate explaining how that output was generated and why it can be trusted. The original-device pathway applies when the actual phone/DVR/server is produced; the court can examine it or have it examined without leaning on the same certificate at the threshold. Unlike the IEA’s single-signatory 65B certificate, Section 63(4) BSA escalates the threshold by requiring the certificate “at the admission stage” and, critically, two signatures: the person in charge and an expert (including an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 39(2)). This shift risks turning a flexible gateway into a rigid, one-size-fits-all bar. A rigid dual-certification gate is normatively overbroad; a proportionate “either-or-plus” standard, admissibility via either a compliant certificate (for secondary outputs) or production of the original device, plus targeted expert/custodian intervention only upon specifically pleaded integrity disputes—better aligns reliability with procedural economy and access to justice.
The paper undertakes a doctrinal reading of Sections 39–45 (expert evidence), Sections 56–64 (documentary and electronic proof, including Section 61 parity and the Section 63 certificate/original-device pathways), Section 66 and Section 73 (identification and comparison tools— signatures/handwriting/digital signatures), and Sections 94–95 (parol- evidence rule) under the BSA, together with the IEA–BSA transition; synthesises controlling precedent (Anvar–Shafhi–Arjun Panditrao; Batra– Jai Lal–Ramesh Chandra); and triangulates those findings with reputable legal-publisher and practitioner analyses on Section 63(4)’s dual-signature mechanics, the Schedule’s hash fields, and the definition/capacity gaps around “expert”. It also draws limited comparative cues and tests the proposed standard through worked examples, yielding proportionate reforms.
Keywords: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Electronic Evidence, Section 63, Digital Evidence, Electronic Records, Admissibility, Procedural Fairness.
