Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India and Others (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered a petition filed by the Pune Bar Association challenging the constitutional validity of Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), read with the Schedule thereto. The petitioner contended that the provision imposed undue hardship on litigants by requiring a certificate containing disclosure of the hash value of electronic records in Part A and certification by an expert in Part B as preconditions for admissibility of electronic evidence. It was argued that such requirements were onerous, arbitrary, and unjust.
The Court observed that with technological advancement, electronic records such as emails and audiovisual clips had become commonplace in litigation, replacing physical documents. To address admissibility of such records, Section 65B had earlier been incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was subsequently replaced by Section 63(4) of the BSA. The Court noted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the BSA emphasised admissibility of electronic records and recognition of matching hash values as proof of evidence in the form of secondary evidence.
The Court held that electronic records are susceptible to mutation and modification, affecting authenticity and evidentiary value, particularly in light of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. It observed that the requirement of disclosure of hash value in the certificate ensured authenticity and integrity of electronic records and had a rational nexus with the object of the law. The Court further held that certification by an expert under Part B provided an additional layer of authenticity to secondary electronic evidence. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Section 63(4) could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
