generally not in doubt because of their official character and the statutory frameworks under which they are created.

It explicitly recognises certified copies of public documents as sufficient proof of their contents, introduces great legal certainty into the evidentiary process. The provision reduces the logistical challenges of having to produce original documents in court, which may sometimes be difficult to obtain, lost or not easily accessible. Certified copies, which are readily available from the concerned custodians of public records, can be introduced in place of originals, thus promoting efficiency and facilitating smoother judicial proceedings.

Example

A party claims ownership of a piece of land and presents a document from the land registry as evidence. Under Section 76, instead of demanding the original land registry document, a certified copy of the document can be shown in court as proof sufficient enough to present its contents, including its details on ownership, for which further verification or proof of the authenticity of the document is not required.

Important points:

-Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the admissibility of secondary evidence, such as copies of documents, was much more limited.

-The earlier provisions were narrower as to the requirement of proof,showing that a copy was a correct representation of the original document.

-The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, on the other hand,broadens the scope of these provisons by specifically admitting certified copies of public documents as a valid form of secondary evidence.

-This Amendment is in line with current legal procedures, where one may not have access to the original documents, but copies thereof would be readily available and constitute authentic evidence.

Section 77: Evidence of Other Official Documents

Section 77 deals with the proof of official documents. This section plays a crucial role in streamlining judicial proceedings and simplifying the introduction of evidence in legal matters.

It provides that certified copies of official documents are admissible as evidence without further proof of their authenticity. This provision is particularly important in cases where original documents may be difficult to obtain, lost, or unavailable, thus offering a practical and efficient alternative for proving the contents of official records.

The certified copies of official documents can be produced as evidence in judicial proceedings. When issued by an authorized person or a competent authority, a certified copy is treated as the very representation of the original document. Thus, it can be produced as evidence in court without further authentication and verification of its authenticity.

The expression official documents under Section 77 would cover all kinds of documents prepared by governmental or statutory authorities.

Official documents are such as:

-Government Reports

-Certificates issued by Public Authorities:

-Public Office Records

Important points:

The certified copy of an official document, under ? has the same legal effect as the original document. This provision effectively eliminates the need for producing original documents in court, which may often be impractical due to issues such as their unavailability, loss, or difficulty in transportation. As a result, certified copies serve as sufficient evidence, thereby reducing delays and promoting greater efficiency in legal proceedings.

-Whereas section 77 provides that the copy, being certified, is evidence, it does not permit the production of any evidence which the evidence act bars or prohibits its use. It, therefore means that, no provision in section 77 shall prevail over the other legal rules restricting the presentation of evidence. That is, one cannot tender the certified copies as evidence for proof of a document where the production thereof is barred by other different legal rules.

-It is especially relevant in modern legal practices where electronic records and digital documentation are commonly used. Recognizing the authenticity of certified copies, whether in paper or digital format, this provision empowers courts to manage documents more efficiently and conveniently. It enables electronic and digital records to be included in judicial practice, thus opening the court doors to all for better access and less complexity.

-This modernization brings the law in line with the times and makes legal proceedings more efficient. In addition, the new Act recognizes the increasing relevance of electronic records, which incorporates modern methods of record keeping.

Section 78: Presumption as to Genuineness of Certified Copies

Section 78 deals with the presumption of genuineness relating to certified copies of documents. This provision is aimed at easy submission of documentary evidence during legal proceedings by raising a legal presumption in favour of the genuineness of certified copies and thus increasing judicial efficiency by reducing procedural burdens on the parties.

It creates a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of certified copies of documents. The section states that if a certified copy is tendered for proof, the copy is presumed to be genuine, unless the contrary is proved by evidence. This acts as a legal presumption that lightens the burden of the party presenting the certified copy, thereby exempting them from proving the authenticity of the original document unless they are challenged.

A certified copy, as defined in Section 78, refers to a duplicate of an original document that has been verified and attested by an authorized person or competent authority. This certification assures the court of the document’s authenticity, allowing it to be treated as reliable evidence in legal proceedings. Such certification guarantees that the copy is a true and accurate representation of the original document.

Important points:

-It extends the presumption of genuineness not only to traditional paper documents but also to certified electronic records. This broad scope reflects the growing prevalence and recognition of digital documentation in modern legal and administrative systems. Electronic records that have been certified by an authorized certifying authority are afforded the same presumption of authenticity as paper documents, ensuring consistency in the treatment of evidence regardless of its medium.

-While the presumption of genuineness puts the burden of proof on the party challenging the authenticity of a certified copy, it is rebuttable. When a party disputes the authenticity of a certified copy, it becomes incumbent upon that party to come up with convincing evidence disproving the fact of genuineness of that document . That way, the presumption is not irrebutable and does not prevent its rebuttal when fraud or error is involved.

-The presumption of authenticity created in Section 78 is significant in the admission of certified copies without delay. The provision reduces judicial delays as authentication is not required. This means that the certified copies of paper-based documents or even electronic records are easily admitted as evidence, and the same may be challenged only in exceptional circumstances.

This assumption is especially useful in cases where the original document may be hard to find, lost, or otherwise unavailable for presentation in court. It gives litigants a practical way of presenting evidence without compromising the integrity of the legal process.

Section 79: Presumption as to Documents Produced as Records of Evidence

Section 79 deals with the presumption of genuineness as to documents given in evidence as records of evidence in judicial proceedings. This provision establishes the presumption of authenticity of documents filed as evidence, part of evidence or any statement given before any judicial officer or any officer authorized to take evidence . This provision also gives rise to the presumption in favour of the statement or confession made by any prisoner or accused taken in accordance with law and signed by such officer. Essentially, a document tendered in court is presumed authentic unless proven otherwise at trial by the party that disputes its authenticity. The basic presumption facilitates the process of admitting documentary evidence by transferring the burden of disproving them on the party that challenges their authenticity.

It provides for presumption of genuineness of documents that are produced as records of evidence in court. It means that documents produced as records of evidence or part of evidence given by any witness in a judicial proceedings are considered authentic unless and until there is a substantial rebuttal by the opposite party. Such presumption was incorporated with the intention of providing authenticity and greater evidentiary value to judicial records.

This section gives rise to the presumption in favour of the document recorded in the course of judicial proceedings and not the veracity of that statement written in that document.The burden of proving that a document is not genuine rests on the party who disputes the genuineness of the document. This provision seeks to curb frivolous objections to valid evidence and ensures that the judicial process does not get derailed by unnecessary delays. The party challenging the genuineness of the document must prove the case against its genuineness clearly and convincingly.

By assuming the genuineness of documents, promotes a smooth process of judicial administration. This section minimizes preliminary issues related to the genuineness of evidence.

It is also instrumental in establishing that electronic records are indeed valid and admissible as evidence. In a modern context of litigation, wherein electronic communication and documentation are becoming a regular phenomenon, the principle of presumption of authenticity attaches to both physical and electronic documents equally. This aligns with the contemporary approach of the legal world wherein electronic records are often the crucial evidentiary material for the resolution of disputes.

Important points:

-The presumption of authenticity minimizes the restrictions on the party to introduce documents as evidence. The court is obliged to consider the authenticity of the document presented, and unless otherwise disproved, the need to perform the time-consuming authentication procedures is minimal. This streamlining of procedures promotes expediency in judicial proceedings.

-It promotes the use of electronic evidence, because, in the modern digital age, most documentation is electronic. The provision helps to overcome previous barriers to the admissibility of electronic records by establishing that they are equal to traditional paper documents.

-By placing the burden of proof on the contesting party, Section 79 ensures that challenges to the authenticity of documents are not made without substantiated claims. This provision safeguards the integrity of the judicial process by giving rise to a presumption in favour of the statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.

It follows the international trend of the legal systems, which have in most cases streamlined the procedures for admitting documentary evidence, especially electronic records. This assumption is important in a world where large amounts of documentation are created and stored electronically. The section recognizes the growing role of digital evidence in litigation and responds to the call for legal systems to evolve with technology.

-Under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, proving the authenticity of documents, particularly electronic records, was often more complicated and restrictive. The BSA simplifies this process by establishing a clear presumption of genuineness for documents produced as evidence, including electronic records. This reform marks a significant departure from the older legislative framework and modernizes the rules of evidence to reflect current practices in documentation.

Section 80: Presumption as to Gazettes, Newspapers, and Other Documents

Section 80 of this enactment introduces an important legal presumption about the genuineness of certain documents, such as Gazettes, newspapers, and other documents that are statutorily required to be kept by individuals or bodies. It makes available a presumption of good faith concerning certain kinds of documents to be used as evidence. The section is as under:

The court shall presume the genuineness of any document which appears to be an Official Gazette, a newspaper or any other document which by law is requisite to be kept by any person or by any public officer in his official capacity, if such document is so kept in all material respects and if it is produced from proper custody. This presumption makes the process of presenting such documents as evidence in a court of law reliable, thus reducing the burden on the party to prove the genuineness of the document.

It presumes the genuineness of certain documents, such as Official Gazettes, newspapers, and other documents that are by law required to be issued, provided they are produced from proper custody and are kept in substantial compliance with the legal requirements governing their maintenance. The result of this presumption is that once such documents are brought before the court, the contents of such documents are presumed to be genuine unless disproved by the other party.

An important element of Section 80 is the concept of proper custody. The provision explains that a document shall be considered to be in proper custody if it is deposited in the prescribed place and in the custody of the person who is legally responsible for its safe keeping.

The presumption covers a broad range of documents, including but not limited to:

- Official Gazettes issued by government bodies,

- Newspapers that are regularly issued and satisfy certain legal requirements, and

- Other documents that are legally required to be kept by a person or entity, such as records required by statute or regulation.

Important points:

-It assumes the genuineness of documents such as Gazettes, newspapers, and other records legally required to be published. It thus facilitates the proof of such documents in court. Legal practitioners are relieved of the burden of proving the authenticity of such documents, which are usually relied upon in judicial proceedings. This would lighten the administrative burden on litigants and the court and expedite the legal process towards effective administration of justice.

-The presumption increases certainty in law particularly in respect of documents frequently invoked in judicial proceedings such as government notices and official publications. This decrease in the frequency of disputes over authenticity reduces the pendency of cases and delays caused by appeals to the authenticity of evidence.

-In consideration of the trend towards electronic documents, Section 80 de facto condones putting electronic formats within its reach. This inference extends to records both paper and electronic; the former, by mere necessity and the latter, under similar circumstances with due compliance with their respective regulatory requirements. Section 80, in a way then reflects on current modes of maintaining and documenting papers, mirroring changes and developments brought about in document preparation and storage.

-Through this presumption of genuineness, Section 80 does away with the delays and procedural wrangles often made in courts regarding the genuineness of commonly used documents.