Call Detail Records as Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: What They Prove, How They Are Proved, and Their Limits

Call detail records are produced in a very large proportion of criminal trials and in a growing share of civil litigation. They are reliable, they are generated automatically by a disinterested third party, and they are among the easiest electronic records to prove. They are also routinely over-read: a record establishes that a device was within the coverage of a tower, and courts are regularly invited to treat it as establishing that a person was at a place.

1. What a Call Detail Record Is

A call detail record is a log maintained by a telecommunications operator recording the particulars of each communication handled by its network. It is generated automatically, for the operator's own billing and network-management purposes, and it exists whether or not any dispute ever arises.

A record ordinarily contains the calling and called numbers; the date, time and duration of the communication; its type, whether voice, message or data; the identity of the handset by its equipment identifier; the identity of the subscriber identity module; and the identity of the cell site through which the communication was carried, frequently with the sector or azimuth of the antenna.

A related record, sometimes produced alongside, logs internet sessions rather than calls, recording the addresses assigned and the times of connection. It is used chiefly to connect an internet address to a subscriber at a given moment.

2. Relevance

Call detail records are relevant on several footings, and identifying which applies in a given case determines what the record can establish.

As a business record. The record is an entry in books maintained in electronic form, regularly kept in the course of the operator's business, and it is relevant under Section 28. The qualification in that section applies — such entries alone are not sufficient to charge any person with liability — but that limitation is directed at liability rather than at proof of the fact of communication.

As evidence of opportunity and of the state of things. Under Section 5, facts which constitute the state of things under which a fact in issue happened, or which afforded an opportunity for its occurrence, are relevant. That two persons were in communication shortly before an occurrence, or that a device was within the coverage of a tower near the scene, falls squarely here.

As evidence of time and place. Under Section 7, facts which fix the time or place at which a fact in issue happened are relevant. This is the head under which location data ordinarily enters.

As conduct. Under Section 6(2), a pattern of calls before or after an occurrence — a sudden flurry, a call to a person not otherwise connected, a period of silence — may be relevant as conduct.

As a fact inconsistent with a fact in issue. Under Section 9, records showing a device far from the scene at the material time support a plea of alibi, and this is one of the most effective defence uses of such records.

3. Proof

Call detail records are among the easiest electronic records to prove, because they come from a system that satisfies the statutory conditions on its face.

The four conditions in Section 63(2) are met without difficulty. The operator's system is used regularly to create and store information for an activity regularly carried on by a person having lawful control. Information of that kind is fed in regularly in the ordinary course — indeed automatically, without human intervention. The system is in continuous operation and its proper functioning is monitored as a commercial necessity. And the output reproduces or is derived from what the system recorded.

The certificate under Section 63(4) and the Schedule is furnished by the operator, ordinarily through its nodal officer, who is the person in charge of the relevant activities within the meaning of the sub-section. Part A is signed by him with the hash value of the record supplied; Part B requires the expert declaration, and following Pune Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297, the expert need not be an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Where the operator does not furnish records voluntarily, the compulsive machinery applies — a summons to produce a document under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the ordinary discovery machinery in a civil suit. On the authority of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, where a party cannot obtain a certificate because the system is in another's control, the court may compel production.

4. Retention

Operators retain call detail records for limited periods under their licence conditions. The period is finite and is measured in months rather than years for most categories of record.

The practical consequence is absolute. A party who intends to rely on such records must apply for them early. An application made a year after the event may find that the records have been purged, and no order can restore what no longer exists.

Where records existed and were not obtained, the failure may be commented upon. Under Illustration (g) to Section 119 the court may presume that evidence which could be produced and is not would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person withholding it, and where an investigating agency knew that records existed and allowed the retention period to expire, the inference is available.

5. What Location Data Actually Establishes

This is where call detail records are most often over-read, and the over-reading is worth setting out precisely.

A cell site record establishes that a device connected to a particular base station, ordinarily through a particular sector of its antenna. What that means on the ground depends on the coverage of that sector, which varies enormously.

In a dense urban area cells are small and overlapping, and a sector may cover a few hundred metres. In a rural area a single cell may cover several kilometres. Coverage is also affected by terrain, buildings, the height and tilt of the antenna, the power at which it was operating, and the load on the network at the moment — a device may connect to a more distant tower because the nearest was congested or temporarily out of service.

What follows is that a cell site record places a device within an area, and the size and shape of that area must be established before the record proves anything about location. The area is established by evidence — the coverage map or the radio-frequency plan for the site, the sector azimuth, and, where it matters, a coverage survey.

6. Device, Number and Person

A call detail record is a record about equipment and a subscriber identity, and connecting either to a person requires separate evidence.

The record identifies the handset by its equipment identifier and the subscriber identity module by its number. These are two different things and the distinction matters: a single handset may be used with different modules, and a single module may be moved between handsets. A record showing the same handset identifier used with two numbers is often more informative than either number alone.

The connection from the module to a person is made through subscriber information — to whom the number is registered, the identity documents furnished on activation, and the address given. This is obtained from the operator along with the records.

The connection from the registered subscriber to the person who was using the device at the material moment is not made by any record, and must be established by ordinary evidence: exclusive possession of the handset, contents of communications, conduct, admission, and corroborative material placing the person where the device was.

Section 90 underlines the point. It permits a presumption that an electronic message corresponds with the message fed in for transmission, and then instructs the court in terms not to presume who sent it. The same logic applies to call records: they establish that a device made a call, not that a person did.

7. Use in Circumstantial Cases

Call detail records are most valuable in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, and they are used in four recurring ways.

Association. That two persons who deny knowing one another were in frequent communication before an occurrence. This is often the most powerful use, because it is difficult to explain away and does not depend on location at all.

Supporting a last-seen circumstance. That the devices of the deceased and the accused were within the same sector at the material time, narrowing the interval within which another person could have intervened.

Contradicting an account. That a person who says he was at home was within a sector covering a different area, or that a call he denies making was made from his device.

Supporting an alibi. Under Section 9, records placing a device far from the scene at the material time are facts inconsistent with the fact in issue. This is the defence use, and it is frequently the stronger one, because establishing that a device was not in an area is less sensitive to the coverage problem than establishing that it was.

In each case the record is a circumstance, subject to the ordinary conditions. It must be fully established, which means properly proved with a certificate from the operator. It must be consistent only with guilt, which is where the coverage problem bites hardest. And it must form part of a complete chain, because a record of association or of presence in a sector establishes neither participation nor authorship.

8. Privacy

Obtaining call detail records involves the collection of information about a person's communications and movements, and the constitutional dimension has been settled since 2017.

The practical consequence is not that call detail records are inadmissible — the general Indian position established in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345 is that relevancy, not the manner of collection, is the test of admissibility. It is that the authority under which the records were obtained is a legitimate subject of examination, that a request should be confined to what the investigation requires rather than being a general trawl, and that the obtaining of a person's records for a period unconnected with the matter under investigation is open to challenge.

The distinction between metadata and content remains important here. Content requires authorisation for interception under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Call detail records are metadata and are obtained by requisition, but the reasoning in Puttaswamy treats informational privacy as extending to metadata as well, and the proportionality of a request is therefore answerable.

9. Lines of Attack

The defence of a call detail record case, and the attack on one, both proceed through the same questions.

• Was the certificate obtained from the operator, or from the officer who received the records?
• Does the certificate disclose a hash, and does it relate to the record actually filed?
• Is the record complete for the period, or has an extract been produced? Section 33 applies to a call record as to any other electronic record.
• What is the coverage of the sector relied upon, and has any evidence of it been led?
• Was the sector azimuth recorded, and does the direction of the antenna cover the place alleged?
• Is the handset identifier consistent across the period, or was the module used in more than one device?
• Is the subscriber information proved, and does it connect the number to the person?
• What evidence connects the person to the device at the material time, independently of the record?
• Is the time in the record the time of the event, or the time at which the record was written, and is the system clock verified?

10. A Practical Checklist

1. Apply early, before the retention period expires.
2. Ask for the certificate at the same time as the records, from the operator's nodal officer, in the form of the Schedule with the hash value.
3. Ask for subscriber information as well as the records, since the two are proved together.
4. Ask for the cell site details — the address, the sector, the azimuth and the coverage — and not merely the tower identifier.
5. Obtain the full period, not an extract, so that the record cannot be attacked under Section 33.
6. Note the handset identifier, which is frequently more informative than the number.
7. Plan the attribution case separately — registration, exclusive possession, contents, conduct, admission, corroborative records.
8. Do not submit that a record shows a person at a place unless the coverage of the sector has been established in evidence.

11. The Position Stated Shortly

1. A call detail record contains no content, only the particulars of the communication and the cell site.
2. It is relevant under Sections 5, 6(2), 7, 9 and 28, according to what it is being used to prove.
3. It satisfies the conditions in Section 63(2) readily, because it is generated automatically in the ordinary course by a system in continuous regular use.
4. The certificate must come from the operator, not from the officer who received the record.
5. Retention periods are short, and an application made late may find nothing left.
6. A tower is not a location. The record places a device within a sector whose coverage must itself be established.
7. The record identifies equipment and a subscriber identity, not a person, and Section 90 forbids any presumption as to who communicated.
8. Obtaining such records engages informational privacy under Puttaswamy, and the authority and proportionality of the request are answerable.

12. Related Topics and Provisions