Salient Features and Applicability of the BSA, 2023 (ss. 1–2) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Salient Features and Applicability of the BSA, 2023 (ss. 1–2)

On 1 July 2024 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — a statute that had governed proof in Indian courts for a hundred and fifty-two years — was repealed overnight. In its place came the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: the same skeleton, the same doctrines, but renumbered, rewritten in places, and rebuilt around one thing the Victorians never imagined — the computer file.

The BSA is the new code of evidence. You must be able to say what it changed and where it applies.

A. Salient features

Learn these as a list — each is an exam-worthy line.

A modern re-enactment, not a fresh start. The BSA keeps the entire architecture of the 1872 Act — relevancy, admissions, confessions, documentary proof, burden of proof, estoppel, witnesses — but renumbers it. There are 170 sections in 12 chapters (against the old 167 sections). Most doctrines survive unchanged; only the numbers move (res gestae from IEA s. 6 to s. 4 BSA; admissions from IEA s. 17 to s. 15 BSA).
Electronic and digital records are primary evidence. The definition of “document” (s. 2(1)(d)) now expressly includes electronic and digital records, and such records are admissible as primary evidence (ss. 57, 61). This is the single biggest substantive change.
The Examiner of Electronic Evidence. Expert opinion on electronic evidence is placed on a statutory footing — the court may take the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence (s. 39(2)).
The s. 63 certificate (old s. 65B). A computer output can be proved without producing the original computer only if the statutory conditions are met and a certificate — signed both by the person in charge of the device and by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence — is filed.
Confession in a joint trial. Where more than one person is tried jointly for the same offence, a proved confession affecting the maker and a co-accused may be taken into consideration against both (s. 24), now with an Explanation covering absconders and persons tried later.
Commencement and coverage. The Act came into force on 1 July 2024 and applies across the country. It sits alongside its two sister codes — the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (penal) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (procedure).

B. Applicability — the s. 1 clause

Section 1 fixes the reach of the Act, and the exam point is the list of what it does not cover.

It applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial.
It does not apply to (i) affidavits presented to any court or officer, and (ii) arbitral proceedings. In those forums the strict rules of evidence are relaxed.

Section 2 then supplies the definitions — the “dictionary” of the Adhiniyam — which the next several topics unpack.

⚠️ Do NOT say the BSA rewrote the law of evidence from scratch. It is a re-enactment: the doctrines (res gestae, admissions, dying declaration, estoppel) are carried over almost verbatim from the 1872 Act; the real changes are the section numbers and the central place given to electronic and digital records. Treating every old case as “no longer good law” is a serious error — pre-2024 case law on relevancy still governs.

Section 1, BSA 2023 (applicability): “It applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-Martial, but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator.”

In Simple Terms: The BSA governs proof in every court proceeding, and even in courts-martial — but it lets go of its grip in two places: affidavits and arbitrations, where the strict evidentiary rules do not bind.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["BSA 2023<br/>(replaces IEA 1872 from 1 July 2024)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Re-enactment<br/>170 sections, 12 chapters"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Electronic/digital records<br/>= primary evidence"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Examiner of Electronic Evidence<br/>+ s. 63 certificate"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Applies: all judicial proceedings + Courts-Martial"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["Does NOT apply: affidavits, arbitration"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer (2014) — an electronic record can be proved only by satisfying the s. 65B (now s. 63 BSA) certificate conditions; the source of the mandatory-certificate rule the BSA now codifies.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) — reaffirmed that the certificate is a mandatory pre-condition to admitting electronic evidence.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics