Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023: History, Need, Features & More | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 Overview

Background

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has long governed the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts, applicable to both civil and criminal proceedings. Although amended over the years to include electronic records (2000) and address issues related to consent in rape cases (2013), the IEA is increasingly seen as outdated.
• The Law Commission has reviewed the IEA multiple times, recommending changes to address custodial violence, the admissibility of police confessions, and protocols for cross-examination. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, introduced on August 11, 2023, aims to replace the IEA and has been examined by the Standing Committee on Home Affairs.

Need for Replacing the IEA with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

• Modernization and Technological Advancements: The BSA modernizes the legal framework to include electronic and digital evidence, ensuring they are legally recognized and properly handled in judicial proceedings.
• Consistency with Criminal Reforms: The BSA integrates various criminal law reforms into a cohesive framework, addressing issues like the burden of proof in rape cases and the irrelevance of the victim’s character in consent.
• Addressing Custodial Injustices: The BSA introduces stricter guidelines to prevent evidence obtained through coercion from being admitted, enhancing protections against custodial violence.
• Enhanced Clarity and Efficacy in Evidence Admission: The BSA clarifies rules on admissibility, including electronic records, aiming to remove ambiguity and improve judicial efficiency.

Key Features of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

• Admissible Evidence: Defines admissible evidence as 'facts in issue' or 'relevant facts,' including documentary and oral evidence.

• Proved Fact: A fact is considered proved if the Court believes it exists or is highly probable based on presented evidence.

• Police Confessions: Confessions to police officers are generally inadmissible unless recorded by a Magistrate, with exceptions for new facts discovered through such confessions.

• Documentary Evidence: Expands the definition of documents to include electronic records, maintaining distinctions between primary and secondary evidence.

• Oral Evidence: Allows oral evidence to be given electronically, enhancing accessibility and efficiency.

• Electronic or Digital Records as Evidence: Recognizes electronic records as primary evidence if stored correctly, covering a broad range of digital formats.

• Secondary Evidence: Broadens to include oral and written admissions and testimony from document examination experts.

• Joint Trials: Clarifies that joint trials remain valid even if an accused person absconds or fails to respond to arrest warrants.

Issues Concerning the Applicability of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Electronic Records as Evidence:

• Tampering of Electronic Records: Electronic records are vulnerable to tampering. While the BSA allows courts to consult experts, it lacks explicit safeguards for the integrity of electronic evidence. Recommendations include secure handling and proper chain of custody.

• Admissibility Ambiguities: The BSA’s inclusion of electronic records as primary evidence could create ambiguities, particularly regarding certificate authentication. The Standing Committee recommended addressing these overlaps to ensure clarity.

Challenges to Facts Discovered in Police Custody:

• Custodial Coercion: The BSA retains provisions allowing facts discovered during police custody to be admitted if they directly relate to the information provided. However, concerns exist about potential coercion. The Law Commission has recommended that facts obtained under duress should be inadmissible.

• Admissibility Based on Custody Status: The BSA maintains distinctions between information obtained in and out of custody. Despite the Supreme Court's past support, there are recommendations for revisions to ensure fairness and relevance irrespective of custody status.

Conclusion