Draft:Electronic record
What is an electronic record?
An electronic record is information generated, stored, received or sent in electronic form. Common examples include e-mails, text and instant messages, digital photographs, audio and video files, databases, server logs, call detail records and closed-circuit television footage. The term is defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the manner of proving such records in court is governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. An electronic record is treated in law as a species of document. Because it can be copied and altered without leaving a visible trace, the law of evidence attaches particular conditions to its admission.
Official definition of electronic record
Statutory definitions
Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines "electronic record" to mean "data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche."
Section 29A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, now repealed, did not itself govern admissibility. It provided only that the words "electronic record" shall have the meaning assigned to them in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 contains no equivalent standalone provision. Section 2(39) instead provides that words and expressions used but not defined in the Sanhita, but defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, carry the meanings assigned in that Act.
The evidentiary framework
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024 by notification S.O. 849(E) dated 23 February 2024. Section 170(1) repeals the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under section 170(2), any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before commencement continues to be dealt with under the 1872 Act. Cases decided after July 2024 therefore continue to apply section 65B of the repealed Act.
Recognition. Section 61 provides that nothing in the Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record, and that such record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.
Primary evidence. Section 57 defines primary evidence as the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Four Explanations address electronic records. Explanation 4 provides that where an electronic or digital record is created or stored, and such storage occurs simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is primary evidence. Explanation 5 provides that where an electronic or digital record is produced from proper custody, it is primary evidence unless it is disputed. Explanation 6 provides that where a video recording is simultaneously stored in electronic form and transmitted, broadcast or transferred to another, each of the stored recordings is primary evidence. Explanation 7 provides that where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource, each such automated storage, including temporary files, is primary evidence.
Admissibility of computer output. Section 63(1) deems any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory, produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form, to be a document. Such a record is admissible in any proceedings without further proof or production of the original, where the conditions of the section are satisfied.
Section 63(2) prescribes four conditions. First, the computer output was produced during the period over which the computer or communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for an activity regularly carried on by the person having lawful control over its use. Second, information of the kind contained in the record was regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course of those activities. Third, the device was operating properly throughout the material part of that period, or any malfunction did not affect the record or the accuracy of its contents. Fourth, the information contained in the record reproduces or is derived from information fed into the device in the ordinary course of those activities.
Section 63(3) provides that where devices were used over the period, all of them are treated as a single computer or communication device, whether they operated in standalone mode, on a computer system, on a computer network, on a computer resource enabling information creation or providing information processing and storage, or through an intermediary.
The certificate. Section 63(4) requires that a certificate be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is submitted for admission. The certificate identifies the electronic record and describes the manner of its production, gives particulars of the device involved, and addresses the matters in section 63(2). It must be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device, or the management of the relevant activities, whichever is appropriate, and by an expert. It is sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
The Schedule prescribes the certificate in two parts. Part A is to be filled by the party and records the device or source, its make, model, serial number and identifiers, the conditions of lawful control and proper operation, and the hash value of the record together with the algorithm used, which may be SHA1, SHA256, MD5 or another legally acceptable standard. Part B is to be filled by the expert and records the device particulars and the hash value with its algorithm, signed with the expert's name and designation. Both parts require the hash report to be enclosed with the certificate.
The corresponding provision under the repealed Act, section 65B(4), required the certificate of a single person occupying a responsible official position. The Adhiniyam adds a second signatory, a statutory form, and disclosure of the hash value.
Judicial interpretation
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the certificate is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, and that oral evidence cannot take its place (paragraph 59). The Court held that a certificate is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced, which may be done by the owner of a laptop computer, tablet or mobile phone stepping into the witness box and proving that the device on which the information is first stored is owned or operated by him. Where the device is part of a computer system or network that cannot conveniently be brought to court, the certificate is required (paragraph 72(b)). Where a certificate has been applied for and refused, the party may apply to the court for its production, and a party who has done everything possible is relieved of the obligation (paragraphs 45 to 49). The certificate may be directed to be produced at any stage so long as the hearing in a trial is not yet over (paragraph 57). The Court declared Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer to be the governing law, held Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh to be per incuriam, and overruled Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (paragraph 72(a)).
In Rahil v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 858, the Supreme Court applied those principles and held call detail records inadmissible where they were produced without a certificate, the defence had objected at trial, and the prosecution had not cured the defect (paragraph 36). The Court recorded that the question whether Anvar applies retrospectively remains pending before it (paragraph 34).
In Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 599 of 2026, order dated 22 May 2026, a Bench of Surya Kant CJI, Bagchi J and Pancholi J declined to admit a challenge to section 63(4) and the Schedule. The Court observed that the hash value of electronic data is synonymous with an electronic fingerprint, and held that the requirement bears a clear and rational nexus with the object of the law and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable (paragraph 4). On who may sign Part B, the Court observed that it is possible to hold that a person with special skill in computer science and cyber forensics, shown by unimpeachable material, may do so, and not only an Examiner notified under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It expressly refrained from giving any conclusive opinion and kept the question of law open (paragraph 7). The order was passed at the admission stage without notice to the Union, and the observations on Part B are obiter.
Since section 63 substantially reproduces the conditions and structure of section 65B, the authorities decided under the repealed provision are likely to guide its construction. No decision verified for this page has so held in terms.
Case law
| Case | Citation | Principle | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu | (2005) 11 SCC 600 | Secondary evidence of electronic records admissible without a certificate | Overruled on this point by Anvar |
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | (2014) 10 SCC 473 | Certificate mandatory for secondary electronic evidence | Good law, as clarified in Khotkar |
| Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. | (2015) 7 SCC 178 | CCTV footage admissible as secondary evidence | Per incuriam |
| Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. | (2018) 2 SCC 801 | Certificate requirement may be relaxed | Overruled |
| Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal | (2020) 7 SCC 1 | Certificate a condition precedent; unnecessary where the original device is produced | Leading authority |
| Rahil v. State (NCT of Delhi) | 2025 INSC 858 | Records inadmissible where objection taken and defect uncured | Good law |
| Pune Bar Association v. Union of India | W.P. (C) 599/2026, order dated 22.05.2026 | Section 63(4) not arbitrary; Part B signatory left open | Admission-stage order; Part B observations obiter |
Types of electronic record
The statutory definition in section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 extends to data, records, images and sound, and to micro film and computer generated micro fiche. Section 63(1) of the Adhiniyam refers additionally to semiconductor memory and to communication devices. The Schedule lists the sources from which a record may be produced, including computer or storage media, digital video recorders, mobile phones, flash drives, compact and digital versatile discs, servers and cloud storage.
For evidentiary purposes the working distinction is between the primary electronic record, being the original on the device where it was first stored and proved by producing that device, and computer output, being a copy, printout or extraction, which requires a certificate under section 63(4).
Appearance in official databases
Court records are increasingly created and held in electronic form under the eCourts Mission Mode Project. On 13 September 2023 the Union Cabinet approved Phase III of the project as a Central Sector Scheme spanning four years with a financial outlay of Rs. 7,210 crore, directed at digital, online and paperless courts through digitisation of the entire court record including legacy records.
The e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India has issued a Digital Preservation Standard Operating Procedure, Version 1.1 dated 24 September 2021, covering both digitised and born-digital court records. It provides for Judicial Digital Repositories at each High Court and in the Supreme Court, to be audited and certified under ISO 16363; a Judicial Digital Preservation System built on the ISO 14721 Open Archival Information System reference model; records management under ISO 15489; and preservation in PDF/A formats. The Standard Operating Procedure also prescribes a certificate proforma for digitised records, framed by reference to section 65B of the repealed Act.
Research that engages with electronic records
Digital Preservation Standard Operating Procedure (e-Committee, Supreme Court of India, September 2021). Reports that High Courts responding to its survey had digitised approximately 5.9 per cent of legacy pages, and recommends certified Judicial Digital Repositories with an estimated five-year outlay of Rs. 2,677.76 crore.
International experience
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore section 63 of the Adhiniyam, derives from section 5 of the United Kingdom's Civil Evidence Act 1968. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (paragraphs 26 to 29) the Supreme Court noted that the United Kingdom repealed those provisions by the Civil Evidence Act 1995, under which electronic records are treated as ordinary documents and are subject to no separate rule of admissibility. The Court also referred to section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Indian law has moved in the opposite direction, adding an expert signatory and disclosure of the hash value.
Challenges
The Adhiniyam does not identify who may act as the expert for the purposes of Part B of the Schedule. Pune Bar Association indicates that persons other than notified Examiners may qualify, but expressly leaves the question open.
Section 170(2) preserves the repealed Act for pending proceedings, so section 65B and section 63 will operate side by side for some years.
The question whether Anvar applies retrospectively to cases decided under Navjot Sandhu remains pending before the Supreme Court.
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (paragraphs 61 and 62) the Court noted that telecom licence conditions require call detail records to be preserved for only one year, and directed that seized records be preserved until rules under section 67C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are framed.
The Digital Preservation Standard Operating Procedure records low levels of digitisation and inadequate data centre capacity across several High Courts.
Way ahead
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (paragraph 72(d)) the Supreme Court called for appropriate rules and directions on the preservation and production of electronic records, having regard to the 2018 report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justices' Conference, and on data retention, chain of custody and metadata.
A conclusive ruling, or rules made for the purpose, on who is competent to sign Part B of the Schedule would resolve the uncertainty left open in Pune Bar Association.
The certificate forms prescribed under the e-Committee's Standard Operating Procedure require revision to correspond with the two-part certificate in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam.
Also known as
Digital record; electronic evidence; digital evidence; computer output.