Updated: August 2026 | Reading Time: 11 minutes

Introduction

Digital evidence in legal proceedings has transformed how cases are investigated, presented, and adjudicated in 2026. From emails and social media posts to CCTV footage and GPS data, courts now routinely rely on electronic records to establish facts, corroborate witness statements, and reconstruct events. The question is no longer whether digital evidence can be used, but how it can be authenticated and admitted.

In India, the landscape for digital evidence in legal proceedings underwent a seismic shift with the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, effective 1 July 2024, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The BSA modernises the framework for electronic evidence, aligning it with contemporary technological realities while retaining the core safeguards established by landmark Supreme Court rulings.

Authored by Adv. Shoeb Hakim—a criminal defence, AML, digital forensics, and cybercrime specialist with decades of experience training police and judiciary—this comprehensive guide examines the evolving role of digital evidence in legal proceedings, the new legal framework under the BSA, landmark cases, and emerging challenges for 2026.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: A New Era for Digital Evidence

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 represents a paradigm shift in the law of evidence in India. Replacing the 150-year-old Indian Evidence Act, the BSA modernises the framework for digital evidence in legal proceedings while preserving the fundamental principles of fairness and reliability.[reference:0]

Key Provisions for Digital Evidence

Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the BSA classifies “electronic or digital records” as documents, placing them on equal footing with conventional paper documents.[reference:1]

Section 61 ensures that electronic or digital records cannot be denied admissibility solely because they are electronic.[reference:2]

Section 63 governs the admissibility of information produced by computers and other digital devices. Broadly, Section 63(1) declares that any information in an electronic record produced by a computer shall be deemed to be also a document and shall be admissible as evidence of the contents of the original.[reference:3]

Section 63(4) requires a certificate to verify the authenticity of electronic evidence. The certificate must be signed by both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and ‘an expert’, reflecting the BSA’s emphasis on technical verification.[reference:4]

The BSA extends the scope of documents to include electronic records on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops, smartphones, messages, and websites.[reference:5]

Landmark Cases on Digital Evidence in India

The jurisprudence on digital evidence in legal proceedings has been shaped by several landmark Supreme Court rulings. These cases continue to guide courts under the BSA framework.

1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)

This landmark case clarified that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was a mandatory precondition for the admissibility of electronic records, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of digital evidence.[reference:6] The Supreme Court held that an electronic record is inadmissible in evidence without the required certificate.[reference:7] This ruling established the “complete code” principle for electronic evidence.

2. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

In this case, the Supreme Court provided a clarification, stating that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) could be relaxed in certain circumstances, such as when the electronic device is not in the possession of the party presenting the evidence.

3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

A three-judge bench revisited the law around 65-B certificates and reaffirmed the position in Anvar P.V., effectively ruling that these certificates were mandatory for secondary electronic evidence to be admitted in court.[reference:8] The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity and authenticity of digital evidence.

4. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Rahil (2025)

In June 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that production of a certificate under Section 65-B(4) was not mandatory for admission of certain secondary evidence, carving out exceptions to the strict rule laid down in Anvar.[reference:9] However, the Court reiterated that Section 65-B lays down a special procedure for admissibility which mandatorily requires the certificate in most cases.[reference:10]

5. Kailash v. State of Maharashtra (2025)

In a landmark ruling (2025 INSC 1117), the Supreme Court delivered a definitive clarification on the admissibility of video recordings in criminal proceedings.[reference:11] The Court held that video evidence need not be played or transcribed to be admissible, provided a valid electronic certificate under Section 65B is submitted.[reference:12]

6. Supreme Court on Call Detail Records (2026)

In May 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated that Call Detail Records (CDRs) are inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate.[reference:13] The Court held that secondary electronic evidence requires a Section 65B(4) certificate unless the original record itself is produced in court.[reference:14]

7. Supreme Court on CD as Electronic Record (2025)

The Supreme Court held that a compact disc is an electronic record and, once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled, it becomes an admissible piece of evidence.[reference:15]

Global Cases on Digital Evidence

Digital evidence in legal proceedings has also been shaped by landmark cases in other jurisdictions:

R v. Wood (UK, 1982)

One of the earliest cases where digital evidence was used in court. Computer records were used to prove the defendant’s involvement in a fraud scheme, setting a precedent for the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in the UK.

United States v. Microsoft Corp. (US, 2001)

This antitrust case involved extensive use of digital evidence, including emails and internal documents, to prove Microsoft’s monopolistic practices—highlighting the importance of digital evidence in complex litigation.

United States v. Sterlingov (US, 2024)

This case involved the use of blockchain and cryptocurrency transaction records as evidence in a money laundering prosecution.[reference:16]

The Al-Werfalli Case (ICC, 2017)

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC), social media content was used as digital evidence to charge the defendant with war crimes, illustrating the growing significance of digital evidence in international criminal proceedings.

US Court on AI-Manipulated Digital Evidence (2025)

A US court introduced stricter criteria for the validity and authenticity of electronic evidence in the context of generative AI and deepfakes, establishing new standards for courts to consider when faced with AI-manipulated digital evidence.[reference:17]

Emerging Challenges in Digital Evidence (2026)

As digital evidence in legal proceedings becomes more prevalent, several challenges have emerged:

1. AI-Generated and Deepfake Evidence

With the rise of generative AI, courts are increasingly confronted with the possibility of AI-manipulated or entirely AI-generated evidence. US courts have introduced stricter criteria for authenticating electronic evidence in the context of deepfakes.[reference:18] Similar challenges are emerging in India, requiring new forensic standards.

2. Chain of Custody and Hash Value Verification

Maintaining a clear and documented chain of custody is essential to establish the reliability of digital evidence in legal proceedings. Courts are increasingly relying on hash value verification to establish the integrity of electronic evidence.[reference:19]

3. Data Authenticity and Integrity

Ensuring that digital evidence has not been tampered with or altered remains a core challenge. The BSA addresses this through the certificate requirement under Section 63(4), which must be signed by both the person in charge and an expert.[reference:20]

4. Technical Expertise

Courts and legal professionals often require specialised knowledge to understand and interpret digital evidence in legal proceedings. This has led to increased reliance on forensic experts and digital evidence specialists.

5. Cross-Border Digital Evidence

With data stored across multiple jurisdictions, obtaining and authenticating digital evidence from foreign sources poses significant legal and practical challenges.

What the BSA Changes for Digital Evidence

The transition from the Indian Evidence Act to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 brings several key changes for digital evidence in legal proceedings:

Practical Steps for Handling Digital Evidence

For legal professionals dealing with digital evidence in legal proceedings, the following best practices are essential:

1. Obtain a Valid Certificate

Under the BSA, a certificate under Section 63(4) is mandatory for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence, unless the original is produced. Ensure the certificate is signed by both the person in charge and an expert.[reference:26]

2. Maintain Chain of Custody

Document every interaction with the evidence, including collection, storage, transfer, and analysis. Courts require a clear, unbroken chain of custody to admit digital evidence.[reference:27]

3. Verify Hash Values

Generate cryptographic hash values at the time of collection and verify them at each stage of handling. Hash values provide a unique digital fingerprint that confirms the integrity of the evidence.[reference:28]

4. Engage Forensic Experts

In complex cases, engage qualified digital forensics experts to handle evidence collection, analysis, and presentation. Courts increasingly rely on expert testimony to authenticate digital evidence in legal proceedings.

5. Stay Updated on Case Law

The law on digital evidence is evolving rapidly. Stay current with Supreme Court rulings, such as the 2025 decisions on video evidence and CDRs.[reference:29][reference:30]

Conclusion

Digital evidence in legal proceedings has become indispensable in modern litigation and criminal trials. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has modernised India’s evidentiary framework, treating electronic records on par with physical documents and requiring expert certification for authenticity.

Landmark Supreme Court rulings—from Anvar P.V. to Kailash v. State of Maharashtra—continue to shape the jurisprudence, balancing the need for robust authentication with the realities of modern technology. As AI-generated evidence and deepfakes emerge as new challenges, courts and legal professionals must adapt to ensure that digital evidence in legal proceedings remains reliable, authentic, and admissible.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the current law on digital evidence in India?

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which came into effect on 1 July 2024, governs digital evidence in India. Section 63 of the BSA sets out the admissibility requirements for electronic records, replacing Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Q2: What is the certificate requirement under the BSA?

Under Section 63(4) of the BSA, a certificate verifying the authenticity of electronic evidence is required. The certificate must be signed by both the person in charge of the computer/communication device and an expert, reflecting the BSA’s emphasis on technical verification.

Q3: What are the landmark cases on digital evidence in India?

Key cases include Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) which made 65B certificates mandatory, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) which reaffirmed this, Kailash v. State of Maharashtra (2025) on video evidence admissibility, and the 2026 ruling on Call Detail Records requiring 65B certificates.

Q4: What are the emerging challenges for digital evidence in 2026?

Emerging challenges include AI-generated and deepfake evidence, maintaining chain of custody, data authenticity and integrity, the need for technical expertise in courts, and cross-border digital evidence issues.

Q5: How does the BSA differ from the Indian Evidence Act for digital evidence?

The BSA expands the definition of documents to include electronic or digital records, treats electronic records as primary evidence, and requires the certificate under Section 63(4) to be signed by both the person in charge and an expert, unlike the earlier framework.

📚 Related Legal Guides on Adv. Shoeb Hakim’s Website:

• Cyber Crime BNS Sections 2026: IPC to BNS Mapping
• Section 66C IT Act Identity Theft 2026: Penalties & Legal Analysis
• Global Cybercrime Laws Comparison 2026: US, UK, EU, India & More
• Chain of Custody Challenges and Solutions 2026: 7 Police Errors & Fixes
• Become a Cybercrime Investigator 2026: Career Guide & Roadmap

📌 Explore More on Adv. Shoeb Hakim’s Website:

• Read More Articles on the Blog
• Book a Consultation with Adv. Shoeb Hakim
• Contact Adv. Shoeb Hakim
• Careers & Opportunities

By Adv. Shoeb Hakim
Criminal defence, AML, digital forensics, and cybercrime specialist; former General Counsel, Credit Suisse; training police and judiciary since 1995.

📌 Connect: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shoebhakim | https://shoebhakim.com/shoeb-hakim-blog/
📌 Visit my website for more articles: https://www.shoebhakim.com
📌 Visit my website for legal knowledge: https://www.vakilverse.com
📌 Visit my website for research fellowship: https://www.legalcomplaince.in

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice on their specific circumstances.

Additional Page Metadata

• Author: Adv. Shoeb Hakim
• Author Bio: Adv. Shoeb Hakim is a Mumbai-based criminal defence, AML, digital forensics and cybercrime specialist. Former General Counsel at Credit Suisse. Has been training police and judiciary since 1996. Provides expert commentary on evidence law, digital forensics, and criminal justice reform.
• Article Publisher: Adv. Shoeb Hakim
• Article Section: Evidence Law | Digital Forensics | Criminal Justice | Cybercrime
• Article Tags: Digital Evidence in Legal Proceedings, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Section 63 BSA, Electronic Evidence, Section 65B, Anvar P.V. Case, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, Kailash v. Maharashtra, Video Evidence, Deepfake Evidence, Chain of Custody, Digital Forensics, Adv Shoeb Hakim

#DigitalEvidence #LegalProceedings #BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam #BSA2023 #ElectronicEvidence #Section63 #SupremeCourt #DigitalForensics #EvidenceLaw #Cybercrime #ChainOfCustody #VideoEvidence #Deepfake #AdvShoebHakim