Section 65A-65B Evidence Act vs Section 62-63 BSA — Admissibility of Electronic Records

In India, Sections 62 and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) from 1 July 2024. The certificate route survives: Section 63(4) now requires signature by the person in charge and an expert, submission at each instance, and the Schedule form with hash values.

At a glance

For s.57 Explanations 4–7, s.58 and the new s.61, see Sections 57–63 BSA; this page follows the certificate.

What changed

• Section 65A → Section 62 — Minor edit. "section 65B" becomes "section 63". Contents of electronic records still "may be proved in accordance with" the certificate section.
• Section 65B(1) → 63(1), what is covered — Expanded. Information "printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer" becomes information "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". The deeming rule and "without further proof or production of the original" are identical.
• Section 65B(2) → 63(2), the four conditions — Expanded. "computer" becomes "computer or communication device" throughout; "used regularly to store or process" becomes "to create, store or process"; "any activities" becomes "any activity".
• Section 65B(3) → 63(3), single device — Modified. Combinations of computers and computers "operating in succession" give way to five modes: standalone mode, computer system, computer network, computer resource, or through an intermediary.
• Section 65B(4) → 63(4), the certificate:
  • Opening words — Minor edit. "a certificate doing any of the following things" is kept; "In any proceedings" becomes "In any proceeding".
  • Timing — New. The certificate "shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission".
  • Clause (b) — Expanded. Device particulars must now show production "by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3)".
  • Clauses (a) and (c) — Identical.
  • Signatory — Modified. "a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities" becomes "a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert".
  • Form — New. The best-of-knowledge-and-belief sentence now ends "in the certificate specified in the Schedule".
• Section 65B(5) → 63(5) — Narrowed. Clause (5)(b) (information supplied by an official) and the closing Explanation on "derived" information are not carried over; clause (5)(c) becomes (5)(b) and adds "other electronic means".
• The Schedule — New. Part A (party) and Part B (expert) both give device particulars and hash value(s); only Part A carries the lawful-control and proper-working statement.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Section 65B(4) IEA — extract:

(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,–– … (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; … and purporting 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 (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; …

Section 63(4) BSA — extract:

(4) 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 referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3); (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 for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be 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, Parts A and B — the hash statement (identical in both parts):

I state that the HASH value/s of the electronic/digital record/s is ___, obtained through the following algorithm:— SHA1: SHA256: MD5: Other ___ (Legally acceptable standard) (Hash report to be enclosed with the certificate)

How it works — the certificate route, step by step

1. Decide that you are proving computer output (s.62, s.63(1)). The route is for a statement given in evidence "by virtue of this section". If the record itself is produced as primary evidence, see s.57.
2. Satisfy the four conditions (s.63(2)). Regular use to create, store or process information by the person with lawful control; information of that kind regularly fed in; proper operation, or a malfunction that did not affect the record; and derivation from information so fed. Under the old Act these were held cumulative (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, para 22).
3. Treat linked devices as one (s.63(3)). Servers, networks, cloud resources and intermediaries used for the function over the period count as a single computer or communication device.
4. Prepare the certificate (s.63(4)(a)–(c)). Identify the record and how it was produced, give device particulars, and deal with the s.63(2) conditions. Under the old Act, "doing any of the following things" was read as "doing all" (para 23), and the BSA repeats those words.
5. Complete both Parts of the Schedule. Each states hash value(s) and algorithm, encloses the hash report, and is dated, timed (24-hour IST) and placed.
6. Get the right signatures. The person in charge of the device or the management of the relevant activities, "and an expert". The Act does not define "expert" for this purpose or require a s.79A Examiner (compare s.39(2)).
7. File it with the record, every time (s.63(4)). On a reading, "at each instance" means a certificate accompanies the record whenever it is tendered, in any proceeding.
8. If the holder refuses. Apply to the Court. Section 94(1) BNSS reaches "any document, electronic communication, including communication devices, which is likely to contain digital evidence" (s.91 CrPC said "any document or other thing"), and s.168 BSA keeps the Judge's power to "order the production of any document or thing".

What this means in practice

• For the party relying on a record. Build the certificate when the record is collected; hash values and device identifiers are hard to reconstruct later.
• For the party facing a record. Object when the record is tendered. Sonu (para 27) treats a missing certificate as a mode-of-proof defect that cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. Compare the device and hash value in Parts A and B; the Act states no consequence for a mismatch.
• For prosecutors. Under the old Act, Arjun Panditrao held that the computer output must be furnished to the accused before the trial begins (paras 52, 54), while allowing a defective or withheld certificate to be summoned later (paras 50, 57). Section 63(4)'s "at each instance" wording has not been construed against those holdings in any judgment read here.
• For trial judges and advocates. Once the certificate is in, Kailas (para 19) treats the record as admissible like a document, with no replay-and-transcript rule.

Judgments that still matter

All five construe IEA ss.65A–65B; s.62 repeats s.65A and s.63 keeps most of s.65B's words, so on a reading of the text they remain relevant. None construes s.63.

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, [2014] 11 S.C.R. 399 (2014 INSC 645), decided 18 September 2014. Kurian Joseph J. delivered the judgment of a three-judge bench (with R.M. Lodha CJI and R.F. Nariman J.) in an election appeal. CDs made by feeding recorded speeches into a computer were produced without certificates. The Court held ss.65A and 65B a special provision to which ss.63 and 65 yield, overruling Navjot Sandhu to that extent (para 22). A certificate must accompany the computer printout, CD, VCD or pen drive "when the same is produced in evidence" (para 15), and without it the secondary evidence "is inadmissible" (para 22). The appeal was dismissed (para 40). Why it matters now: s.63(4)'s "at each instance" is the statutory version of para 15.

Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, [2017] 8 S.C.R. 151 (2017 INSC 634), decided 18 July 2017. L. Nageswara Rao J. delivered the judgment (with S.A. Bobde J.). Call records were marked at trial without a certificate or objection. The Court held that "an objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later", the test being whether the defect could have been cured then (para 27). It left the question whether Anvar should apply only prospectively to a three-judge bench (para 35), and upheld the convictions (para 36). Why it matters now: the same timing issue arises for a missing s.63(4) certificate.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Supreme Court, order of 30 January 2018. A two-judge bench (Adarsh Kumar Goel and U.U. Lalit JJ.) said that s.65B(4) applies only when the evidence is produced by a person in a position to produce the certificate, and that a party not in possession of the device "cannot be required to produce certificate" (paras 11–12). Status: overruled in Arjun Panditrao (para 72(a)). It is cited here so that its reasoning is not relied on under s.63.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, [2020] 7 S.C.R. 180 (2020 INSC 453), decided 14 July 2020. R.F. Nariman J. delivered the judgment of a three-judge bench (with S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian JJ.; Ramasubramanian J. added a supplementing opinion). Video recordings from a Returning Officer's office had been admitted on oral evidence without a proper certificate. The Court held the certificate "a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record", and that "Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice" (para 59). A party whose request is refused may apply to the Court to summon the certificate (para 45), and a party who has done everything possible is relieved of the obligation (para 49). The certificate may be directed at any stage before the hearing is over (para 57). The appeals were dismissed (paras 68, 73). Why it matters now: it is the leading reading of the words s.63(4) repeats. Its signatory discussion (para 58) concerned words s.63(4) replaces.

Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, [2025] 9 S.C.R. 935 (2025 INSC 1117), decided 15 September 2025. Manoj Misra J. delivered the judgment (with Ujjal Bhuyan J.) in an NDPS appeal. The raid video carried the videographer's s.65B(4) certificate, but the High Court ordered a re-trial, one of its reasons being that the video had not been played and transcribed through each witness. The Supreme Court called this "a strange and unacceptable reasoning": once s.65B is fulfilled the CD "becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document" (para 19). The re-trial order was set aside and the appeals were restored to the High Court (para 36). Why it matters now: it applies IEA s.65B, not s.63.

Which law applies to your case

BSA s.170(2) provides that any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force is dealt with under the IEA "as if this Adhiniyam had not come into force". A trial pending on that date proves electronic records under s.65B, with no Schedule form. (Kailas, decided in 2025, applied s.65B to a trial conducted under the IEA; it does not discuss s.170.) On a reading of s.170(2), a proceeding begun later uses s.63 and the Schedule. The text does not say whether a s.65B certificate given before 1 July 2024 satisfies s.63(4) in a later proceeding. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What replaced the Section 65B certificate under the BSA? Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It keeps the three things the certificate must do (identify the record and how it was produced, give device particulars, and deal with the Section 63(2) conditions), and adds that the certificate is signed by the person in charge "and an expert", is submitted with the record "at each instance where it is being submitted for admission", and is "the certificate specified in the Schedule".

Is the certificate still mandatory? Where a statement is to be given in evidence by virtue of Section 63, Section 63(4) says the certificate "shall be submitted". Under the old Act the Supreme Court held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020 INSC 453, para 59) that the Section 65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility and that oral evidence cannot take its place. Section 63(4) repeats the structure of Section 65B(4), so on a reading of the text that holding remains relevant.

Who signs the certificate under Section 63(4) BSA? A person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) "and an expert". The Schedule splits the form into Part A, "To be filled by the Party", and Part B, "To be filled by the Expert". Section 65B(4) IEA required only a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the device or the management of the relevant activities.

Do both parts of the certificate need a hash value? Yes. Part A and Part B of the Schedule each contain the statement "I state that the HASH value/s of the electronic/digital record/s is", with the algorithm (SHA1, SHA256, MD5 or another legally acceptable standard) and the note "Hash report to be enclosed with the certificate". Section 65B IEA did not mention hash values.

What if the person who holds the device refuses to give a certificate? Under the old Act, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (paras 43, 45, 50) held that the party can apply to the Court to summon that person to produce the certificate, and that a party who has done all it can may be relieved of the obligation (para 49). Section 94 BNSS now allows a summons for documents and electronic communication including communication devices likely to contain digital evidence, and Section 168 BSA keeps the Judge's power to order production. Whether the relief in para 49 applies to Section 63(4) is not decided by any judgment read for this page.

Can an objection to a missing certificate be raised for the first time in appeal? In Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana (2017 INSC 634, para 27) the Supreme Court held that an objection to call records marked without a Section 65B(4) certificate went to the mode of proof and had to be taken when the document was marked as an exhibit, not at the appellate stage, because the defect could have been cured at trial. The BSA does not address the timing of objections, so the holding is relevant to Section 63(4) only on a reading of the text.

Related

• Sections 57–63 BSA vs Sections 62–65B Evidence Act — the electronic evidence framework
• WhatsApp chats, emails and screenshots as evidence — BSA 61–63 vs IEA 65B
• Section 45 Evidence Act vs Section 39 BSA — expert opinion
• Digital evidence — the new provisions
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• Section 91 CrPC vs Section 94 BNSS — Summons to Produce Documents
• Sections 91-92 IEA vs Sections 94-95 BSA — Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence
• Section 165 IEA vs Section 168 BSA — Judge's Power to Put Questions or Order Production
• Sections 76–90A IEA vs Sections 75–93 BSA — Certified Copies, Official Documents and Presumptions as to Documents

Sources

Acts and sections read (BSA and BNSS from the Gazette; Indian Evidence Act and CrPC from the official texts): BSA ss.1(3), 57, 61, 62, 63, 168, 170 and the Schedule (Parts A and B); IEA ss.65A, 65B; BNSS s.94; CrPC s.91.

Judgments read (full text, Veritect Supreme Court corpus): Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014_11_399_427_EN.md); Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana (2017_8_151_176_EN.md); Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018_1_790_796_EN.md); Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020_7_180_282_EN.md); Kailas v. State of Maharashtra (2025_9_935_962_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.