Section 234 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 234 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the admissibility of electronic records and digital evidence in legal proceedings in India. This section is part of the larger framework aimed at modernizing the way courts handle digital evidence, ensuring it is treated in line with the advances in technology and the increasing reliance on electronic records.
To break it down, Section 234 aims to ensure that electronic records—such as emails, digital files, online communications, and other data generated or stored electronically—are treated with the same level of legality and reliability as traditional paper documents, under certain conditions.
Key Provisions of Section 234 of the BSA, 2023
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:
Electronic records, including emails, digital documents, or any other records stored or transmitted in electronic form, can be admitted as evidence in court proceedings.
They are to be treated as valid and reliable as physical or handwritten records, provided they meet certain conditions, such as authenticity and integrity.
Conditions for Admissibility:
The electronic record must be authentic. The person presenting the record must be able to prove that it has not been tampered with.
The record must be in a format that the court can accept, and the person presenting it must provide a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to prove the record's authenticity.
Certificate of Authenticity:
The law mandates that a certificate signed by the person who controls the computer system (or another person who has access to the record) must be presented to prove that the record is authentic.
This ensures that the court has the necessary information to assess whether the evidence is reliable.
Exemption from Personal Appearance:
The law provides that certain electronic records may not require the physical appearance of the person who created or transmitted them, as long as the record is accompanied by a valid certificate.
Case Law Examples
Let’s look at four significant cases where Section 234 (or similar provisions regarding electronic evidence) played a crucial role:
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005)
Key Issue: The admissibility of digital evidence such as email communications and phone records.
Background: This case involved the 2001 Indian Parliament attacks, and the prosecution sought to present phone records and emails as evidence against the accused.
Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized that electronic records are admissible under Indian law, but they must be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (which is related to Section 234 of BSA). The court noted that digital evidence like phone call records and emails are reliable if they meet the statutory requirements.
Significance: The case set a precedent for how electronic evidence must be handled and certified to be admissible.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Key Issue: The requirement for a certificate to authenticate electronic records.
Background: In this case, the Kerala High Court dealt with the admissibility of a recorded conversation and other electronic evidence. The court noted that electronic records can be admitted as evidence only if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B.
Ruling: The court held that the certificate of authenticity is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence. Even if the contents of the record are genuine, the absence of a Section 65B certificate renders the evidence inadmissible.
Significance: This case highlighted the importance of formalities for the admissibility of electronic records, particularly the certificate required under Section 65B.
3. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Key Issue: The use of electronic evidence to prove the authenticity of voice recordings.
Background: The case dealt with the use of a mobile phone recording of a conversation. The defense argued that the audio evidence should be rejected as it lacked proper certification.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that although the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (which is relevant to Section 234 of the BSA) is required for the admissibility of electronic records, in cases where a genuine attempt is made to provide authentic records, the court can still examine the contents on their own merit.
Significance: This case balanced the strict requirement for certification with the practical realities of presenting evidence, noting that courts have the discretion to allow evidence if the authenticity can be reasonably proven.
4. K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Key Issue: The role of biometric data as electronic evidence.
Background: The case revolved around the use of biometric data (Aadhaar system) as electronic evidence. The petitioners challenged the Aadhaar system, citing privacy concerns.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the use of biometric data as evidence, but emphasized that any electronic record, including biometric information, must adhere to strict standards of privacy, security, and certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (and related to Section 234 of the BSA).
Significance: This case highlighted the importance of safeguarding electronic evidence, especially in terms of its security and how it is presented in courts. It also emphasized the growing role of digital and biometric data in legal contexts.
5. N. S. Bhuvaneshwari v. The State (2020)
Key Issue: The admissibility of social media posts as evidence.
Background: This case examined whether social media posts, such as tweets or Facebook posts, could be considered as valid evidence in a defamation suit. The court looked at whether the posts could be verified as authentic electronic records.
Ruling: The court ruled that social media posts can be admissible in court, but only if they satisfy the conditions laid out in Section 234, including providing proper certification under Section 65B. The posts must be authenticated to ensure they were not tampered with.
Significance: This case reinforced the growing importance of digital evidence and social media in modern legal proceedings, requiring compliance with the procedural safeguards for electronic records.
Conclusion
Section 234 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 emphasizes the importance of treating electronic records with the same level of scrutiny and validity as physical evidence in courts. It ensures that electronic evidence, such as emails, audio recordings, and social media posts, can be used in legal proceedings, provided that they meet the required standards for authenticity and reliability. Courts have consistently stressed the importance of proper certification (under Section 65B) for the admissibility of such evidence, as seen in the above cases.
These rulings collectively shape how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts, ensuring fairness while adapting to technological advancements.
RELATED Blog
comments