Can Private Individuals Issue Certificates Under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In today's digital age, electronic records form the backbone of much legal evidence, from emails and WhatsApp chats to CCTV footage and digital documents. But can just anyone certify their authenticity? A common question arises: Whether a Private Individual can Issue a Certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. This blog post dives deep into the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical implications to clarify this crucial issue.
Understanding the rules around electronic evidence admissibility is vital for litigants, lawyers, and businesses relying on digital proofs in court. Let's break it down step by step.
What is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, governs evidence admissibility in Indian courts. Section 63 specifically addresses the proof of electronic records, mirroring the erstwhile Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Key aspects include:- Electronic records are admissible only if they meet certain conditions to ensure authenticity and integrity.- A certificate under Section 63(4) (corresponding to Section 65B(4)) is often a condition precedent for admissibility. This certificate authenticates the device, process, and record itself. Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka - Crimes (2024) Paras 11 and 61.
Without this certificate, courts may reject electronic evidence, emphasizing its role as a procedural safeguard.
Who is Authorized to Issue the Certificate?
Section 63(4) mandates that the certificate be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to:- The operation of the relevant device, or- The management of relevant activities, or- Someone who can state on oath that the record is what it purports to be.
This typically includes:- System administrators,- Officials of service providers (e.g., telecom or cloud providers),- Persons in control or possession of the device or data.
The law presumes such persons have the necessary knowledge and control to vouch for the record's integrity. Private individuals without this authority do not qualify. Ganesh Ram VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 797 Paras 11 and 61.
Can a Private Individual Issue Such a Certificate?
Generally, no. The statute and courts restrict certification to those with direct control or responsibility. A private individual—lacking possession, management, or operational oversight—cannot reliably attest to the chain of custody or authenticity.
Legal Provisions Breakdown
Under Section 63(4)(c), the certifier must detail:- Device identification,- Manner of production,- Conditions ensuring accuracy, and- Their responsible position.
Courts interpret this strictly: The certificate under Section 65B(4) is to be issued by a person in control of the device or electronic record, not private individuals. Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka - Crimes (2024). Similarly, it must be by a responsible person in relation to the operation or management of the device and not by a private individual. Ganesh Ram VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 797.
Judicial Precedents Reinforcing the Rule
Indian courts have consistently upheld this:- The certificate ensures reliability and authenticity, attainable only by authorized persons. Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh vs Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1402.- Private individuals' certificates are inadmissible due to lack of control. Courts scrutinize the issuer's credentials rigorously.
This aligns with the purpose: preventing tampering or fabrication in electronic evidence.
Role of Private Individuals: Clear Limitations
Private persons, even if they possess a copy of the record, cannot issue valid certificates. Reasons include:- No presumption of knowledge about device operations or data integrity.- Inability to confirm the chain of custody.- Risk of disputes over authenticity.
The law excludes unrelated private individuals to maintain evidentiary standards.
Insights from Recent Court Applications
Recent cases highlight practical enforcement:- Parties frequently seek extensions to file certificates under Section 63(4)(c), underscoring its mandatory nature. For instance, This is an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking additional time to file a certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. TRIMURTI FRAGRANCES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10715.- Courts grant time or dispose applications for filing such certificates, but only from authorized sources. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR. Vs. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 1880, SANDVIK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AB vs SANVIK CORESOFT LLP - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2514.- Exemptions are sought in specific contexts, like seeking exemption from filing the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, but not to allow private issuance. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC VS. DAICHI INTERNATIONAL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8276.
In non-standard proceedings, like tax assessments, Section 63 may not strictly apply, as Section 65B of the Evidence Act does not apply to assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15731. However, for general civil/criminal matters, compliance is essential.
Other contexts, such as will probate under Indian Succession Act Section 63(c) read with BSA Section 70, emphasize proof by attesting witnesses, not private certifications. P. D. Parameswaran Pillai VS T. N. Ramachandran Nair, (Died Lrs Impleaded).
Exceptions and Special Circumstances
Rarely, if a private individual holds a responsible position (e.g., device owner in a small setup), it might be arguable—but courts typically demand proof of control.
Practical Recommendations for Litigants
To avoid evidentiary pitfalls:- Engage service providers or device custodians early for certificates.- Verify the certifier's authority and position.- File applications for extensions if needed, as courts often allow under Section 151 CPC. SANDVIK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AB vs SANVIK CORESOFT LLP - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2514.- Courts should (and do) scrutinize certificates to ensure statutory compliance.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on statutes and precedents. Legal outcomes may vary by facts; consult a qualified lawyer for advice.
Conclusion: Stick to Authorized Certifiers
In summary, a private individual cannot issue a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Only persons in control or responsible positions qualify, as affirmed by law and judgments like Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka - Crimes (2024), Ganesh Ram VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 797, and Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh vs Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1402.
Key Takeaways
- Certificate is mandatory for electronic evidence admissibility.
- Restricted to controllers/managers, not private individuals.
- Recent applications show courts enforce but accommodate timelines.
- Prioritize compliance to strengthen your case.
By understanding these rules, you can navigate digital evidence effectively. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence!
#BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam #Section63BSA #ElectronicEvidence
