The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, which would overturn the current Indian Evidence Act of 1872, is one of the three measures that Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced on Friday in Lok Sabha. According to the details, there are 167 sections in the new Bharatiya Sakshya Bill.
Important clauses in the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill
1) The bill makes digital or electronic records admissible as evidence, giving them the same legal standing as paper records.
2) It alters 23 provisions, introduces one new provision, and repeals five current provisions of the Evidence Act.
3) In addition, the bill comprises 170 sections in total and 23 sections that are subject to alteration.
5) The measure has expanded the definition of secondary evidence to include mechanical copies made from the original, counterparts of documents, and oral descriptions of document contents.
6) The government hopes to establish clear, consistent guidelines for handling evidence during case trials with the passage of this bill.
The definitions of “conclusive proof,” “may presume,” and “shall presume” under Section 4 of the Evidence Act have been combined into one definition, clause 2, which is the first noteworthy modification in Chapter I of the Bill and specifically Section 2, which provides key definitions. Words used in the Bill but not specifically defined therein are to be interpreted in accordance with the Information Technology Act, 2000, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 2(2) of the Bill.
The provisions of Chapter II of the Bill regarding “closely connected facts” (which include provisions on evidence of the facts at issue and relevant facts, relevancy of the facts included in the same transaction, relevance of the facts being the occasion, cause, or effect of the facts at issue, the facts demonstrating the existence of mind, etc.) are the same as those found in the Evidence Act. The text of Section 12 of the Evidence Act, however, has been somewhat adjusted under Section 10 of the bill while remaining essentially the same. This section dealt with the relevance of facts to the court’s ability to decide damages.
Similarly, with a few modifications, the requirements pertaining to admissions have been kept. For instance, the phrase “admission by party to proceeding or his agent” (under Section 16 of the Bill and equivalent to Section 18 of the Evidence Act) sets forth admissions made by the suitor in representative character. The Evidence Act Section 22A, which deals with oral evidence as to contents, has now been removed from the bill.
The Evidence Act’s Section 45, which deals with the opinion of experts, has been changed to Section 39 of the Bill, which now states that the opinion of the person who examines electronic evidence in accordance with Section 79A of the IT Act shall be a relevant fact for material that is kept digitally. Additionally, provisions relating to handwriting and digital signature opinions that were previously contained under Sections 47 and 47A of the Evidence Act have now been combined under Section 41 of the Bill without modification. As a result, courts may now be allowed to take into account the opinions of those who are familiar with both a person’s handwriting and their digital signature.
Oral admissions, written admissions, and evidence that a person looked at a document have all been added to the list of categories included under Section 58 of the Bill’s definition of “secondary evidence,” which corresponds to Section 63 of the Evidence Act.
The existing section is simplified by Section 61 of the bill, which states that the admissibility of an electronic or digital record shall have the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as paper records. This section corresponds to Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
A new explanation that clarifies the meaning of “proper custody is explained” has been added to Section 81 of the Bill, which also adopts a more expansive version of Section 81A of the Evidence Act about the presumption of gazette in electronic form.
The bill has now been amended to remove Section 82 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the presumption about materials admissible in England. Similar to Section 88 of the Bill, Section 86 of the Evidence Act, which dealt with presumptions about certified copies of foreign judicial records, is modified so that it no longer refers to the dominions of Great Britain and uses a nomenclature to designate papers from any country other than India. As opposed to telegraphic messages as defined in Section 88 of the Evidence Act, Section 90 of the Bill specifies the presumption with regard to electronic messages.
Despite being structured differently, Section 137 of the Evidence Act serves as the foundation for Section 142 of the Bill, which deals with witness examination. In addition, Section 146 of the Bill, which dealt with “leading questions,” has been adjusted to specify the circumstances under which they are to be used, as opposed to Section 141 of the Evidence Act, which was more general and depended on the “suggestive” nature of inquiries. As a result, the proviso that prohibits the production of any privileged communications between ministers and the President of India is added to Section 165 of the Bill, which deals with the production of documents.
