The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinyam replaces the Indian Evidence Act

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which replaces the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)of 1872, marks a significant shift in the Indian judicial system by modernizing the legal framework around the admissibility and handling of evidence in court proceedings.

The key objectives of BSA are to modernize, simplify, and streamline how evidence is presented and interpreted inside the courts. Such modern provisions will make judicial system more technology-enabled, fair, and efficient. Compared to the Indian Evidence Act, BSA is simplified, clearer, and visibly addresses challenges like cybercrime and vulnerable groups. 

One of the most ground breaking aspects of BSA is its recognition of electronic and digital evidence on par with traditional documentation. This means that digital records, such as emails and online communications, now hold the same weight as physical documents in court. This change reflects the evolving nature of communication and information storage in our digital age.

BSA significantly broadens the definitions of 'evidence' and 'documents' to include modern elements like server logs, locational evidence from GPS data, and digital voice messages. 

According to Section 63 of BSA, electronic and digital records are admissible as evidence and hold the same legal validity and enforceability as traditional documents. This provision ensures that digital records are treated with the same level of seriousness and scrutiny as physical documents, promoting a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to evidence.

Moreover, Section 63(B) of BSA stipulates that printed copies of electronic records can be admitted as evidence if specific conditions are met. These conditions include regular use of the computer for storing relevant information, accurate data entry, proper functioning of the com-puter, and an accurate reflection of the data in the printout. 

Additionally a certificate from a qualified person must confirm these conditions and identify the electronic record and device used. This requirement ensures the reliability and authenticity of digital evidence, safeguarding against potential misuse or manipulation.

One of the most pressing issues is the potential for a spoofed chat to wrongly incriminate an innocent in-dividual. If a screenshot can be easily manipulated, it becomes unreliable as evidence, leading to possible miscarriages of justice. This underscores the necessity for robust authentication mechanisms beyond simple screenshots.

Therefore, while screenshots can serve as initial indicators in digital investigations, their susceptibility to manipulation underscores the imperative for comprehensive authentication procedures and expert validation. Without such safeguards, the potential for misuse and injustice remains a pertinent concern in the digital age.

It is crucial for professionals, businesses  and individuals to understand its provisions and implications.