Bank Statements as Evidence After Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 2026: What Changes in Court

Summary: The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 2026 (No. 15 of 2026), which received Presidential assent on 13 August 2026 and came into force on 1 October 2026, replaces the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and modernises the evidentiary framework for physical and electronic banking records. The legislation recognises records maintained in digital, cloud-based, virtual and backup systems and prescribes distinct certification requirements for physical and electronic bankers’ books under Section 3 and the First and Second Schedules. Section 5 permits duly certified copies to serve as prima facie evidence of entries, without automatically establishing the legal character or truth of every underlying transaction. Sections 6 and 7 address the admissibility of electronic banking records, including system reliability, authorised data entry, record integrity, protection against tampering and cybersecurity safeguards. Sections 8 and 9 regulate the summoning of bank officers, inspection of records and court-directed production of certified copies, including certificates concerning the absence of other relevant entries. Section 11 extends specified procedural arrangements to investigations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The article examines certification requirements for recovery suits, cheque dishonour complaints and tax or GST inquiries, including the evidentiary limitations of customer-downloaded bank statements and the relevance of Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It also highlights the transitional uncertainties arising from Section 16’s repeal and savings provisions and provides practical steps for obtaining, checking and challenging banking records in legal proceedings.

Introduction

A supplier files a recovery suit for ₹42 lakh. His proof of payment is a PDF statement downloaded from net banking, with the relevant credit highlighted. The defendant objects at the evidence stage: the statement carries no bank certificate, so it cannot be read.

Until recently the answer depended on the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891. That Act has been repealed. The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 2026 (No. 15 of 2026) received the President’s assent on 13 August 2026, and a notification dated 10 September 2026 reportedly appointed 1 October 2026 as the commencement date. Lawyers, accountants and in-house teams now need to understand the requirements of the new Act before submitting anything.

What the Act actually changes

The idea dates back to 1891. A bank need not be required to produce its original ledgers in court; a duly certified copy of an entry is accepted instead. Section 5 of the 2026 Act keeps that rule: a certified copy is prima facie evidence that the entry exists, and it is admitted to the same extent as the original entry would be, “but not further or otherwise.”

The novelty in the Act is the approach towards electronic records. Clause 2(1)(b) refers to “bankers’ books” which include records held electronically, digitized and in virtual or cloud space, and also at backup sites. The logic is the same one courts apply to accounting software records. Section 6 says an electronic or digital bank record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, provided the conditions in Section 7 are met.

The definition of “legal proceeding” in Section 2(1)(f) also covers arbitrations and investigations or inquiries under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, not only court trials.

The two certificates

Section 3 asks for a certificate with every certified copy, and the content depends on how the book is kept.

Physical books (Section 3(1))

Physical books (Section 3(1)). The certificate should declare that the copy is true and accurate, that the entry appears in a usual book of the bank, that the books are now in the custody of the bank (or that they have been destroyed in the usual course since the copy was made), and that the copy is accurate in itself if prepared mechanically. The form should be according to the First Schedule.

Electronic or digital books (Section 3(2))

Electronic or digital books (Section 3(2)). The certificate must describe the computer system or device that produced the copy and address the Section 7 conditions, in the format of the Second Schedule.

As per Section 3(3), the certificate shall have a date and shall bear the signature or authentication, either manual or electronic under the IT Act, 2000. The person signing the same should be the head of that branch or any other authorised officer of that bank who should mention his/her name and designation. There is a proviso to this which permits things to be mentioned “to the best of knowledge and belief” of the signatory.

The Section 7 conditions

These will matter most when the other side wants to attack an electronic record. In plain terms:

• The record came from a system regularly used for the bank’s activities, and the relevant information was regularly fed into it in the ordinary course.
• The system was working properly, or any malfunction did not affect the record.
• The copy is true, prepared from all relevant records, and correctly derived from them.
• Only authorised persons entered or changed data, and no unauthorised alteration was detected.
• Data transfer to removable media, where used, was done with adequate safeguards and safe custody.
• No tampering with the system was detected.
• The network, devices and data were secure against cyber risks.

Anyone who has dealt with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 will recognise the structure. The 2026 Act adds bank-specific items, such as authorised data entry and cybersecurity, as explicit statutory conditions.

Bank officers and inspection (Sections 8 and 9)

Where the bank is not a party in the suit, no one officer shall be ordered to give the banker’s book or give evidence to establish the entries therein, except where the court orders him to do so for “a special cause,” which cause is put down in writing. Section 8(2) states that “special cause” means any cause such as: suspicion of the accuracy or authenticity of the entries, something that indicates the bank had broken its chain of custody, or the bank’s non-compliance with Section 9’s inspection order.

Section 9 lets a party apply for leave to inspect and copy entries, or for an order directing the bank to produce certified copies along with a further certificate that no other relevant entries exist. The order is served on the bank three clear days before compliance, unless the court directs otherwise, and the bank may offer to produce its books at trial or show cause against the order.

The provisions of Section 11 are invoked while conducting investigations under the BNSS. Here, the expression “order of Court” means an order of an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or any other officer designated by the respective Government. Various scholars have highlighted the possible problems with such an invocation. Readers may go through the text for themselves.

The transition problem

Section 16 repeals the 1891 Act but saves proceedings under it. Among other things, it preserves any proceeding, appeal, review or reference “instituted before, on, or after the date of commencement” under the repealed enactment, to be continued under that enactment.

How this applies to a suit filed before 1 October 2026 in which bank evidence is led after that date is not something I have seen settled. My reading is that the safest course is to obtain a certificate that satisfies the 2026 Act’s requirements wherever possible, since the 2026 conditions are broader than the 1891 ones. Until courts clarify the position, treat this as an open point and check the practice of the forum concerned.

Practical examples

The recovery suit

The recovery suit. The supplier should not rely on the net-banking PDF alone. A certified copy from the bank under the 2026 Act is the cleaner route. If he has only the customer-side download, it must be proved as an ordinary electronic record through the BSA Section 63 certificate, signed by the person who controls the device or account. In my view, a customer’s own download is not a “certified copy” of a banker’s book under the Act, because it carries no bank certificate.

The cheque bounce complaint

The cheque bounce complaint. The complainant wants to show that the debit never happened and that the account had insufficient funds. The return memo is one document; the account statement is another. For the statement, request a Section 3(2) certificate from the branch, so that the Section 7 conditions are addressed on the face of the certificate.

The tax or GST inquiry

The tax or GST inquiry. An officer relies on bank entries to make an addition. The assessee should ask what the entry actually shows. Section 5 stops at the existence of the entry. A credit of ₹5 lakh proves money came in, not whether it was a loan, a gift, a sale receipt or a refund.

Common mistakes

1. Filing a bank statement printed from the portal with no certificate and assuming the court will accept it.

2. Treating a branch stamp and signature as enough without the details Section 3(3) requires (date, full name, designation, and the Schedule format).

3. Summoning a bank officer as a witness in a case where the bank is not a party, without making out special cause.

4. Reading Section 5 as proof of the underlying transaction. It proves the entry.

5. Using old 1891 Act certificates after commencement without checking whether the proceeding falls within the savings clause.

6. Ignoring Section 9(1) when a “no other entries” certificate is what the case actually needs.

Practical steps

• Write to the branch early and ask for a certified copy in the correct Schedule format, with the full statement period needed.
• Check that the certificate is dated, signed (manually or digitally) and names the officer and designation.
• For electronic records, make sure the Section 3(2) certificate speaks to the Section 7 conditions and is not a one-line “true copy” stamp.
• Where the bank resists, apply under Section 9 for inspection or production, and ask for the “no other entries” certificate if completeness matters.
• Keep the customer’s own downloads, with a BSA Section 63 certificate, as a back-up and not as the main proof.
• If the other side files bank records, test them against the Section 7 conditions, not only against the signature.

Conclusion

For decades the bank certificate was treated as routine paperwork. The 2026 Act turns it into something more specific: a signed statement about how the record was created, stored and protected. Parties who plan for this at the filing stage will avoid a fight about admissibility in the middle of cross-examination. Those who do not may find that the entry they needed is in the bank’s system but not yet in the case.

*****

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The Act and commencement notification should be verified from the Gazette of India before reliance. Readers should consult a qualified advocate for their specific facts.