Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Clause-by-Clause Commentary and Changes from the Indian Evidence Act

The three provisions governing electronic records repay close reading, because the changes from the Indian Evidence Act are concentrated in details rather than announced in headings. Section 61 is entirely new. Section 62 is carried forward unchanged. Section 63 reproduces the old Section 65B with four alterations, one of which — the requirement of an expert signature — has produced litigation up to the Supreme Court.

1. Section 61 — Electronic or Digital Record

Section 61, BSA

Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.

Correspondence: none. Section 61 has no counterpart in the Indian Evidence Act and is one of the genuinely new provisions of the Adhiniyam.

1.1 Clause-by-clause

'Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility' — the provision operates negatively. It does not confer admissibility on anything; it removes a ground of objection. A party still has to prove his record; what he does not have to meet is the argument that electronic material is somehow outside the scheme.

'on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record' — the objection removed is a specific one. Any other objection remains fully available: that the record is irrelevant, that it is hearsay, that no foundation for secondary evidence has been laid, that the certificate is missing, or that its contents are untrue.

'subject to section 63' — the qualification that carries the weight. Parity of legal effect is conferred subject to the conditions and the certificate in Section 63, so the provision cannot be used to escape those requirements.

'the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document' — this goes beyond admissibility. It addresses substantive questions as well: an electronic contract, an electronic receipt, an electronic notice each has the effect its paper equivalent would have. The language echoes the Information Technology Act, 2000, which conferred legal recognition on electronic records for the purposes of the substantive law.

⚠ Section 61 answers a bad objection, not a good one

The provision is sometimes cited as though it made electronic material admissible without more. It does not. It disposes of the argument that electronic evidence is inherently suspect or falls outside the statute, and it makes the parity subject to Section 63. A party who cites Section 61 in answer to an objection that the certificate is missing has cited the wrong provision.

2. Section 62 — Special Provisions as to Evidence Relating to Electronic Record

Section 62, BSA

The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63.

Correspondence: Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000. Carried forward unchanged in substance.

The section is a signpost of one line, and its importance lies entirely in the construction the courts placed on its predecessor.

📖 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473

Held: Electronic records constitute a special class of evidence. Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act together form a complete code on the subject, and compliance with Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admission of secondary electronic evidence. Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, a party cannot fall back on the general provisions relating to secondary evidence in Sections 63 and 65 to escape the special requirements. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, which had permitted proof under the general provisions, was overruled to that extent.

Ratio: The special provisions exclude the general ones. The same reasoning applies to Sections 62 and 63 of the Adhiniyam, which reproduce the scheme.

The practical consequence is that a party cannot argue that his electronic record is secondary evidence under Section 58 and admissible under Section 60 without complying with Section 63. Section 62 directs the contents of electronic records to Section 63, and that direction is exclusive.

3. Section 63(1) — What Is Deemed a Document

Section 63(1), BSA

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer or communication device, and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

Correspondence: Section 65B(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, with two changes.

3.1 The changes

'or any communication device' is new. Section 65B(1) spoke only of a computer. The Adhiniyam adds communication device throughout Section 63, which brings mobile phones squarely within the provision. Under the earlier Act it was arguable — and was argued — that a phone was not a computer within the definition, and the addition removes the argument.

'semiconductor memory' is new in the list of media. The earlier provision spoke of optical or magnetic media; the addition covers flash memory, solid-state drives and memory cards, which are now the commonest storage.

3.2 The operative words

'Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam' — the non obstante clause gives Section 63 priority over the general provisions on documentary evidence, reinforcing the complete-code reasoning in Anvar P.V.

'computer output' — the defined expression. It covers a printout, a copy on optical, magnetic or semiconductor media, and any other electronic storage. What matters is that it is information from an electronic record reproduced in one of these forms.

'shall be deemed to be also a document' — the deeming makes the output a document for every purpose of the Adhiniyam.

'without further proof or production of the original' — the practical point of the section. A party who satisfies the conditions need not produce the server, the device or the storage medium.

'of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible' — an important limit frequently overlooked. The output is admissible as evidence of a fact only where direct evidence of that fact would have been admissible. If the statement in the record would be hearsay coming from a witness, it does not cease to be hearsay because it is in a computer output.

4. Section 63(2) — The Four Conditions

Section 63(2), BSA

(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;

(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record was regularly fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;

(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.

Correspondence: Section 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, carried forward with 'communication device' added throughout. The substance is unchanged.

The four conditions are cumulative and are addressed to a single question: was the system one whose output can be trusted to reproduce what was put into it? They are examined in detail in the separate treatment of the conditions for admissibility of computer output.

5. Section 63(3) — Combinations of Devices

Section 63(3), BSA

Where over any period the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication devices, whether — (a) in standalone mode; or (b) on a computer system; or (c) on a computer network; or (d) on a computer resource enabling information creation or storage or processing and communication; or (e) through an intermediary, all the computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer or communication device.

Correspondence: Section 65B(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, but substantially expanded. The earlier provision spoke of computers used in succession, in different combinations, or in any other manner involving the successive operation of one or more computers. The Adhiniyam replaces that with an enumeration covering standalone mode, a computer system, a computer network, a computer resource enabling creation, storage, processing and communication, and — the significant addition — through an intermediary.

The expansion matters. Modern records pass through service providers, hosting platforms, payment gateways and messaging intermediaries, and under the earlier language it was arguable that the chain fell outside a provision framed around 'successive operation'. The enumeration in Section 63(3) covers the whole of it and treats every device involved as a single device, so the conditions in sub-section (2) need be satisfied once rather than for each machine in the chain.

6. Section 63(4) — The Certificate

Section 63(4), BSA

In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely —

(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a communication device;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,

and purporting to 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 shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it, and in the certificate specified in the Schedule.

Correspondence: Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, with three changes, and they are the most consequential alterations in the whole group.

6.1 The expert signature

Section 65B(4) required the certificate to be signed by 'a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities'. Section 63(4) requires it to be signed by a person in charge and an expert.

This is the change that produced the constitutional challenge, because the addition of an expert signature raised the question who could qualify — and in particular whether Part B could be signed only by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, of whom very few exist.

📖 Pune Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297 (decided 22 May 2026)

Held: A three-Judge Bench (Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.) upheld Section 63(4) and the Schedule. Electronic records are a species of evidence liable to continuous mutation, and the requirements of hash-value disclosure and expert certification bear a rational nexus with the object of securing authenticity and integrity. Reading Sections 39(1) and 39(2) harmoniously, the expert who signs Part B is not confined to a notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence; any person possessing special skill in computer science or cyber forensics may sign, provided the court is satisfied of the credentials on unimpeachable material. The contrary view of the Madras High Court in R. v. B. was held not to operate as binding precedent, and the scope of Part B certification was expressly left open.

Ratio: The provision is valid, and the class of persons competent to certify is considerably wider than had been feared.

6.2 'At each instance where it is being submitted for admission'

These words are new. The earlier provision did not say when or how often the certificate was to be furnished, and a question had arisen whether one certificate served for all purposes. Section 63(4) settles it: the certificate accompanies the record each time it is tendered for admission.

6.3 'And in the certificate specified in the Schedule'

The earlier provision prescribed no form. Section 63(4) requires the certificate to be in the form specified in the Schedule, which is divided into Part A, completed by the party or the person in charge and disclosing the hash value, and Part B, carrying the expert's declaration. The prescribed form is examined separately.

7. Section 63(5) — The Clarifications

Section 63(5), BSA

For the purposes of this section —

(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied in any appropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or by means of any appropriate equipment;

(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer or communication device operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer or communication device, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or by means of any appropriate equipment or by other appropriate means.

Correspondence: Section 65B(5) of the Indian Evidence Act, carried forward with the addition of 'communication device'.

The three clarifications each remove a technical objection. Clause (a) prevents the argument that information routed through intermediate equipment was not 'supplied' to the device. Clause (b) covers outsourced processing, where an official's data is handled on a system not operated by his office. Clause (c) prevents the argument that an output produced through intermediate equipment was not produced by the device.

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act also carried an Explanation defining 'computer' broadly, extending to a computer used for storing or processing information whether by itself or in combination with other computers, whether or not used in the course of a business, and whether or not situated in the same premises. The Adhiniyam relies instead on the definitions in the Information Technology Act, 2000, which Section 2(2) incorporates.

8. The Changes in Summary

Provision	Change from the Indian Evidence Act
Section 61	Entirely new. No counterpart. Removes the objection that a record is inadmissible because it is electronic
Section 62	Section 65A carried forward unchanged
Section 63(1)	'communication device' and 'semiconductor memory' added, bringing mobile phones and modern storage squarely within the provision
Section 63(2)	Substance unchanged; 'communication device' added throughout
Section 63(3)	Substantially expanded — standalone mode, computer system, computer network, computer resource, and through an intermediary are now enumerated
Section 63(4)	Three changes — an expert signature in addition to the person in charge; the certificate required at each instance of submission; and the form specified in the Schedule, with the hash value
Section 63(5)	Carried forward with 'communication device' added; the Explanation defining 'computer' is not reproduced, the definitions in the IT Act being incorporated by Section 2(2)

9. Reading the Three Together

The sequence in which the provisions are applied is fixed, and following it disposes of most objections.

Is the output primary evidence under an Explanation to Section 57? If so, Section 63 does not apply and no certificate is needed.
Is the original device itself produced by its owner? If so, no certificate is required — Arjun Panditrao.
If neither, the output is secondary evidence, and Section 62 directs that its contents be proved under Section 63.
Are the four conditions in Section 63(2) satisfied? Regular use, regular feeding, proper operation, and derivation.
Where several devices were involved, Section 63(3) treats them as one, so the conditions need be satisfied once.
Is the certificate under Section 63(4) and the Schedule furnished, signed by a person in charge and an expert, and submitted with the record at this instance of tender?
Section 61 stands behind all of this, preventing the objection that the record is inadmissible simply because it is electronic.

10. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Electronic and Digital Evidence — Sections 61 to 63	The combined treatment, with the line of authority
Section 63 Certificate — Complete Note	The Schedule, its two Parts and the hash value
Conditions for Admissibility of Computer Output	Section 63(2) in detail
Electronic or Digital Record as Primary Evidence	The Explanations to Section 57, which precede Section 63 in the sequence
Electronic and Digital Evidence under the BSA	Where electronic material appears throughout the statute
Section 2(2), BSA	Incorporation of definitions from the Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 39(2), BSA	The Examiner of Electronic Evidence, and who may sign Part B