Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 -Presumptions as to Documents and Other Facts [Section 77]

Meaning and Nature of Presumption
The term presumption is not expressly defined in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In legal usage, a presumption refers to an inference drawn by the court regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact, based on another fact that has been proved or is judicially noticeable. It is essentially a process of reasoning whereby the law allows or directs courts to accept certain facts as true until evidence to the contrary is produced.

Jurists have explained presumption as a legal assumption taken without direct proof. It does not itself constitute evidence but operates as a rule of law that shifts the burden of proof. Once a presumption is raised, the party against whom it operates must disprove it by leading evidence.
​
Presumptions play a vital role in judicial proceedings by reducing the difficulty of proving facts that ordinarily arise in the normal course of human conduct, official acts, or public administration.

Relationship Between Presumption and Burden of Proof
Presumption and burden of proof are closely connected and may be viewed as two sides of the same concept. When the law raises a presumption in favor of a fact, the burden of disproving that fact lies upon the opposing party. Conversely, when the burden of proof lies on a party, the law may be said to presume the non-existence of that fact until it is proved.
Thus, presumptions help courts determine who must prove what during a trial.

Types of Presumptions Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
The Act recognizes three distinct kinds of presumptions:
1. “May Presume”
This category grants discretion to the court. The court may either:

• Treat the presumed fact as proved unless disproved, or
• Require the party to produce further proof.

Such presumptions are usually based on logic, common experience, and the ordinary course of human affairs. The court is not bound to draw the presumption and must exercise judicial discretion.
Examples include:

• Presumptions relating to certain documents such as foreign judicial records, books, maps, charts, electronic messages, and old documents.
• Presumptions regarding possession of stolen property shortly after theft.

2. “Shall Presume”
These presumptions are mandatory in nature. Once the foundational facts are established, the court is bound to presume the existence of the fact unless it is disproved by the opposite party.
Although rebuttable, the court has no discretion to refuse the presumption once the conditions are satisfied.
Examples include presumptions relating to:

• Certified copies of public documents
• Judicial records
• Gazettes, newspapers, and official publications
• Maps and plans prepared by government authority
• Powers of attorney
• Electronic agreements and electronic signature certificates
• Secure electronic records and signatures
• Documents called for but not produced

3. Conclusive Proof
Conclusive proof refers to an irrebuttable presumption. Once the foundational fact is proved, the law does not permit any evidence to disprove the presumed fact.
Such presumptions are absolute and final, and the court has no discretion to allow contrary evidence except where expressly permitted by the statute itself.
Examples include:

• Final judgments in probate, matrimonial, insolvency, or admiralty jurisdiction
• Certain statutory presumptions relating to legitimacy or estoppel

Presumptions Relating Specifically to Documents
Presumption as to Certified Copies
Certified copies issued by authorized public officers are presumed to be genuine, provided they are in the proper form and certified according to law. The court also presumes the official capacity of the officer who certifies such documents. However, this presumption is rebuttable.

Presumption as to Judicial Records
Documents that purport to be records or memoranda of evidence or confessions recorded by judicial authorities are presumed to be genuine. The court also presumes that such records were duly taken in accordance with law. This presumption does not extend to the truth or voluntariness of statements contained therein.

Presumption as to Gazettes, Newspapers, and Official Publications
Official Gazettes and government-directed publications are presumed to be genuine if produced from proper custody. Newspaper reports enjoy a presumption of genuineness as publications, but not of the truth of the facts reported, which remain hearsay unless independently proved.

Presumption as to Government Maps and Plans
Maps or plans prepared under the authority of the Central or State Government are presumed to be accurate. This presumption does not apply to private maps, which must be proved by examining the person who prepared them.

Presumption as to Old Documents (Thirty Years)
Documents that are thirty years old and produced from proper custody may be presumed to be genuine with respect to handwriting, signature, execution, and attestation. This presumption exists to overcome the practical difficulty of proving very old documents. However, it does not apply to wills, which must be proved strictly according to succession law.

Presumption as to Electronic Records and Digital Evidence
The Act recognizes several presumptions relating to electronic records, reflecting technological advancements:

• Secure electronic records and signatures are presumed to be unaltered and authentic.
• Electronic agreements are presumed to be validly concluded through digital signatures.
• Electronic signature certificates are presumed correct as to verified information.
• Electronic messages are presumed to match the content fed into the system, but no presumption is made regarding the identity of the sender.
• Electronic records five years old may be presumed authentic if produced from proper custody.

Proper Custody
For most documentary presumptions, production from proper custody is essential. A document is considered to be in proper custody if it is found in a place where it would naturally be kept and under the care of the person who would normally have possession of it. Custody is not considered improper merely because it is unusual, provided the court is satisfied that the document has a legitimate origin.

Conclusion
Presumptions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 serve as essential legal tools that simplify proof, promote judicial efficiency, and reflect practical realities. By allocating evidentiary responsibility through logical inferences, presumptions assist courts in arriving at just conclusions while balancing fairness and convenience. However, except in cases of conclusive proof, presumptions remain rebuttable, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of convenience.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to the Genuineness of Certified Copies [Section 78]

Statutory Provision
Section 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the rule relating to the presumption of genuineness of certified copies and similar official documents. The provision recognises the reliability of documents issued or certified by public authorities and facilitates their acceptance in judicial proceedings without requiring strict proof in every case.
Under Section 78(1), the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be a certificate, a certified copy, or any other document, provided the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The document is declared by law to be admissible as evidence of a particular fact;
2. It purports to be duly certified by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government; and
3. It is substantially in the prescribed form and appears to have been executed in the manner directed by law.

Underlying Principle
Sections 78 to 93 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are based on the well-established legal maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta, meaning all official acts are presumed to have been done regularly and correctly. This principle reflects judicial confidence in the integrity and regularity of acts performed by public officials in the discharge of their statutory duties.

Nature of the Presumption
The presumption created under Section 78 is mandatory but rebuttable in nature. While the Court is bound to presume the genuineness of such certified documents once the statutory conditions are fulfilled, this presumption is not conclusive.
Accordingly:

• The opposing party is entitled to challenge the accuracy or correctness of the certified copy;
• Evidence may be led to show that the document does not correctly represent the original or has been improperly certified.

Thus, the presumption only shifts the initial burden and does not foreclose inquiry into the authenticity of the document.

Presumption as to Official Character of the Certifying Officer[Section 78(2)]
Section 78(2) further strengthens the evidentiary value of certified documents by providing that the Court shall also presume that:

• The officer by whom the document purports to be signed or certified held the official position which he claims to hold at the time of signing or certification.

This presumption removes the necessity of separately proving the authority or designation of the certifying officer, thereby simplifying the process of proof.

Scope and Limitations

• The provision applies only to certificates, certified copies, or documents certified by a competent and duly authorised public officer.
• It does not apply to original documents, which must be proved in accordance with the general rules relating to primary evidence.
• The section operates purely as a rule of evidence, facilitating proof, and does not determine the substantive rights of the parties.

Conclusion
Section 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 plays a crucial role in ensuring procedural efficiency by according presumptive authenticity to certified public documents. By recognising the regularity of official acts while still allowing rebuttal, the provision strikes a careful balance between judicial convenience and fairness to the parties.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Documents Produced as Record of Evidence, etc. [Section 79]

Statutory Provision
Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides for a statutory presumption regarding documents that are produced before a Court as official records of evidence or related proceedings. It applies when a document purports to be:

• A record or memorandum of evidence, or any part of such evidence,
• Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before an officer authorised by law to record such evidence, or
• A statement or confession made by a prisoner or an accused person, recorded in accordance with law,

and such document purports to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate, or any other officer legally authorised for that purpose.
In such cases, the Court shall presume the following:

1. That the document is genuine;
2. That any statements made in the document regarding the circumstances under which it was recorded, and which purport to be made by the person signing it, are true; and
3. That the evidence, statement, or confession was duly taken in accordance with law.

Nature and Scope of the Presumption
The presumption under Section 79 is mandatory in nature. Once the foundational requirements of the section are satisfied, the Court is bound to presume the genuineness and due recording of the document, unless the contrary is proved.
The primary object of this provision is to dispense with formal proof of certain official judicial records. It avoids unnecessary procedural delays by eliminating the need to call the Judge, Magistrate, or authorised officer to testify merely to prove that such a document was properly recorded.
However, it is important to note that this section:

• Does not deal with the admissibility of the evidence; admissibility is governed by other provisions of law, and
• Does not raise any presumption as to the truthfulness or voluntariness of the contents, especially in the case of confessions.

Illustrative Application
For instance, a confession recorded by a Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and produced before the Court will attract the presumption under Section 79. The Court will presume that:

• The document is genuine, and
• The confession was duly recorded following the prescribed legal procedure.

In such a situation, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine the Magistrate who recorded the confession merely to prove its recording.
However, this presumption does not extend to voluntariness. Whether the confession was made voluntarily remains a matter of proof and can still be challenged by the accused.

Conclusion
Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 serves as a procedural facilitation provision. By presuming the genuineness and due recording of judicial records of evidence, statements, and confessions, it promotes efficiency in judicial proceedings while carefully preserving the rights of the accused by not presuming the truth or voluntariness of such statements.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Gazettes, Newspapers, and Other Documents [Section 80]

Statutory Provision
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down a rule of presumption regarding the genuineness of certain official and public documents. It provides that the Court shall presume the genuineness of:

• Every document purporting to be the Official Gazette,
• Every document purporting to be a newspaper or journal, and
• Every document which purports to be one that is directed by law to be kept by any person,

provided that such document:

• Is kept substantially in the form required by law, and
• Is produced from proper custody.

This presumption is mandatory in nature, meaning the Court is bound to presume genuineness unless evidence to the contrary is produced.

Meaning of Proper Custody
The Explanation to Section 80 clarifies the concept of proper custody. A document is said to be in proper custody when:

• It is found in the place where it would naturally be kept, and
• It is under the care of the person with whom it would ordinarily be preserved.

However, the law does not insist on strict technical custody. Even if the document is not produced from its usual place of keeping, such custody will not be considered improper if:

1. It is proved that the document had a legitimate origin, or
2. The surrounding circumstances of the case reasonably make such origin probable.

This flexible approach ensures that technical objections do not defeat substantive justice.

Scope and Significance of the Section(a)Official Gazettes
Publication of rules, notifications, orders, and statutory instruments in the Official Gazette is often a mandatory legal requirement. Such publication serves two important purposes:

• It provides public notice of laws and governmental actions, and
• It acts as a formal confirmation of the validity and enforceability of the rule or order.

Under Section 80, the Official Gazette is treated as authoritative and reliable evidence. Courts rely only on the official version of the Gazette, and its genuineness need not be independently proved.

(b) Newspapers and JournalsWhile Section 80 attaches a presumption of genuineness to newspapers and journals, this presumption is limited in scope. It only establishes that:

• The newspaper or journal is genuine as a publication, and
• It was printed and circulated as it purports to be

However, the truth of the facts reported in a newspaper is not presumed. Statements of fact contained in newspapers are generally considered hearsay evidence. Therefore:

• Newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein,
• Unless the reporter or author of the report appears before the Court and testifies, or
• Unless the facts are proved through independent admissible evidence.

Thus, newspapers may be used to show that a particular statement was published, but not that the contents of the statement are true.

(c) Other Documents Directed by Law to Be KeptThe section also covers documents which the law requires certain persons or authorities to maintain, such as registers, records, or official files. If such documents are maintained substantially in the prescribed form and produced from proper custody, their genuineness is presumed without the need for formal proof.

Nature of the Presumption
The presumption under Section 80 relates only to the genuineness of the document, not to the accuracy or truth of its contents, unless expressly provided elsewhere in the Act. The presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the opposite party is free to challenge the authenticity of the document by leading contrary evidence.

Conclusion
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 plays a vital role in simplifying proof of public and official documents such as Gazettes, newspapers, and statutory records. By allowing courts to presume their genuineness when produced from proper custody, the provision promotes judicial efficiency while maintaining safeguards against misuse by limiting the presumption strictly to authenticity and not factual correctness.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Gazettes in Electronic or Digital Form [Section 81]

​With the enactment of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its amendment in 2008, electronic and digital records were accorded legal recognition, including electronic Gazettes (e-Gazettes). In line with this development, Section 81 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides for a statutory presumption regarding the authenticity of such electronic or digital records.

Statutory Rule under Section 81
Section 81 lays down that:

• The Court shall presume the genuineness of:
  • Every electronic or digital record purporting to be the Official Gazette, and
  • Every electronic or digital record which is directed by any law to be kept by any person,

provided that such record:

• Is maintained substantially in the form prescribed by law, and
• Is produced from proper custody.

This presumption is mandatory in nature and operates unless the contrary is proved.

Meaning and Importance of E-Gazettes
An Official Gazette, whether in physical or electronic form, is a formal publication of the Government used to notify laws, rules, notifications, orders, and other official matters. With the transition to digital governance, e-Gazettes now serve the same legal and evidentiary purpose as traditional printed Gazettes. Section 81 ensures that courts can rely on such electronic publications without requiring strict proof of their authenticity in every case.

Proper Custody of Electronic or Digital Records
For the presumption under Section 81 to arise, the electronic or digital Gazette must be produced from proper custody. Proper custody implies that:

• The record is kept at the place where it is legally required to be kept, and
• It is maintained by the person or authority responsible for its custody.

However, the law adopts a flexible approach. Even if the record is not produced from its usual place of custody, such custody will not be considered improper if:

• The record is shown to have a legitimate origin, or
• The circumstances of the case reasonably explain and justify such custody.

Scope of Presumption
The presumption under Section 81 relates to the genuineness of the electronic or digital Gazette or record, meaning that the Court assumes it to be authentic and official. This facilitates judicial efficiency by eliminating unnecessary formal proof of official electronic publications, especially in an era where governmental records are predominantly maintained in digital form.

Conclusion
Section 81 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reflects the modern realities of digital governance by extending evidentiary presumptions to electronic and digital Gazettes. By recognizing their authenticity when produced from proper custody and maintained as required by law, this provision strengthens the credibility of electronic public records and ensures their smooth admissibility in judicial proceedings.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Electronic Agreements [Section 85]

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the rule regarding the presumption relating to electronic agreements. This provision operates in harmony with the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended in 2008, which accords legal recognition to electronic records, electronic signatures, digital signatures, and electronic contracts.

Legal Basis of Electronic Agreements
With the advancement of digital transactions, agreements are frequently executed in electronic form. The Information Technology Act, 2000 validates such electronic records and signatures, thereby enabling contracts to be formed without physical documentation. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam supplements this framework by prescribing an evidentiary presumption in favour of such electronic agreements.

Statutory Presumption under Section 85
Section 85 provides that:

• The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement, and
• Containing the electronic signature or digital signature of the parties,
• Was concluded by affixing such electronic or digital signatures by the parties concerned.

This means that once an electronic agreement bearing the electronic or digital signatures of the parties is produced before the Court, the law presumes that the agreement was validly executed through those signatures.

Nature of the Presumption

• The presumption under Section 85 is a rebuttable presumption of law.
• The opposing party is entitled to challenge the validity of the agreement by proving that the signatures were not affixed voluntarily, were forged, or that the agreement was otherwise invalid.
• Until such contrary evidence is produced, the Court will presume the genuineness and proper execution of the electronic agreement.

Scope and Significance

• This presumption simplifies the proof of electronic contracts by relieving the party relying on the agreement from the burden of proving execution in the first instance.
• It promotes certainty, reliability, and efficiency in electronic commerce and digital transactions.
• The provision reflects the legislative intent to place electronic agreements on par with traditional written agreements for evidentiary purposes.

Conclusion
Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strengthens the legal framework governing digital transactions by recognising and presuming the validity of electronic agreements bearing electronic or digital signatures. By doing so, it facilitates the smooth enforcement of e-contracts while preserving the right of parties to rebut the presumption through appropriate evidence.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Powers of Attorney [Section 84] 

Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the legal presumption relating to powers of attorney. A power of attorney is a formal legal instrument by which one person authorises another to act on his behalf. Since such documents play a significant role in civil and commercial transactions, the law provides a presumption to facilitate their acceptance and proof in court.

Statutory Provision
Section 84 provides that:

• The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and
• Purporting to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or a representative of the Central Government,
• Was duly executed and authenticated in the manner it claims.

Thus, once such a document is produced, the Court is bound to presume its due execution and proper authentication unless evidence to the contrary is led.

Essential Requirements for Raising the Presumption
For the presumption under Section 84 to operate, the following two conditions must be satisfied:

1. Nature of the Document
   • The document must purport to be a power of attorney, i.e., it should clearly indicate that authority has been conferred upon another person to act on behalf of the executant.
2. Execution and Authentication
   • The document must appear to have been executed before and authenticated by one of the authorities mentioned in the section, such as a Notary Public, Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or a representative of the Central Government.

If a power of attorney does not mention execution before such an authority or lacks proper authentication, the statutory presumption cannot be invoked.

Proof of Power of Attorney
Apart from the presumption under Section 84, a power of attorney may also be proved by producing a certified copy issued in accordance with Section 4 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882. This further eases the evidentiary burden on the party relying on the document.

Meaning and Scope of Power of Attorney
Under the Indian Stamp Act, a power of attorney includes any instrument by which a specified person is authorised to act for and in the name of the person executing it. Section 84 creates a presumption not only regarding the execution of such an instrument but also regarding its authentication by the designated authority.

Judicial Interpretation
In Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, the Supreme Court held that when a document purports to be a power of attorney and appears to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, the Court must presume that it was duly executed and authenticated. The Court also recognised the presumption of regularity of official acts, meaning that acts performed by public officials in their official capacity are presumed to have been done correctly.

Conclusion
Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 significantly simplifies the proof of powers of attorney by creating a mandatory presumption in favour of their due execution and authentication. This provision promotes legal certainty and efficiency by reducing unnecessary technical challenges, while still allowing the presumption to be rebutted through credible contrary evidence.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Collections of Laws and Reports of Judicial Decisions [Section 83]

Section 83 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the presumption regarding the authenticity and genuineness of published law books and reports of judicial decisions. In modern legal systems, statutes, rules, and court judgments are routinely published in the form of official books and reports for public reference. To avoid unnecessary formal proof of such publications, the law incorporates a presumption in their favour.

Statutory Provision
Section 83 provides that:

• The Court shall presume the genuineness of:
  • Every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of any country, and
  • Containing the laws of that country, and
  • Every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such country.

This presumption is mandatory in nature, meaning the Court is bound to accept such publications as genuine unless evidence to the contrary is produced.

Scope and Rationale
The object of Section 83 is to facilitate the administration of justice by recognising the reliability of officially published legal materials. Laws and judicial decisions are matters of public record, and requiring formal proof of their authenticity in every case would be impractical and unnecessary.
This provision ensures:

• Easy reference to statutory laws and judicial precedents;
• Judicial efficiency by avoiding needless evidentiary formalities; and
• Certainty regarding the authenticity of government-authorised legal publications.

Connection with Section 32
Section 83 must be read together with Section 32, which declares the relevancy of statements of law contained in law books. While Section 32 establishes the relevance of such statements, Section 83 strengthens their evidentiary value by presuming their genuineness when they are officially published.

Nature of Presumption

• The presumption under Section 83 relates only to the genuineness of the publication, i.e., that it was indeed printed or published under governmental authority.
• It does not automatically guarantee the correctness of interpretation or application of the law contained therein, which remains subject to judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion
Section 83 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 plays a crucial role in recognising officially published statutes and law reports as authentic legal sources. By creating a presumption in their favour, the provision promotes efficiency, reliability, and consistency in legal proceedings, while reinforcing public trust in government-authorised legal publications.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Maps or Plans Made by the Authority of Government [Section 82]

Section 82 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the rule relating to the presumption of accuracy of maps and plans prepared under governmental authority. Since such maps and plans are prepared by competent public authorities after due enquiry and technical verification, the law attaches a presumption in their favour.

Statutory Provision
Section 82 provides that:

• The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government:
  • Were duly made under such authority, and
  • Are accurate.

This presumption is mandatory, meaning that unless evidence to the contrary is produced, the Court must accept the correctness of such maps or plans.

Scope and Nature of Presumption
The presumption under Section 82 is confined strictly to the accuracy of the map or plan. It does not extend to proving collateral or incidental facts beyond what is depicted in the map itself. The rationale behind this provision is that such documents represent the outcome of systematic enquiries carried out by trained officials acting in their official capacity.

This section must be read in conjunction with Section 30, which declares the relevance of maps or plans made under the authority of the Government. Once relevance is established under Section 30, Section 82 enables the Court to presume their correctness without further proof.
Such maps or plans can also be proved through certified copies under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act.

Illustration
For example, the distance between Allahabad and Lucknow may be proved by:

• An official map issued or maintained by the Government, or
• A railway timetable published under governmental authority, or
• Even by the statement of a person who has travelled between the two places.

However, official maps carry a stronger evidentiary value due to the statutory presumption attached to them.

Authority of Government and Distinction from Private Maps
For the presumption under Section 82 to apply, it is essential that the map or plan must have been prepared under the authority of the Government. A clear distinction is drawn between public maps and private maps:

• Public maps: Prepared or published under governmental authority; presumed accurate under Section 82.
• Private maps: Prepared by individuals or private entities; no presumption of accuracy applies.

Private maps cannot be relied upon unless:

• Their accuracy is independently proved, and
• The person who prepared the map is examined as a witness to testify to its correctness.

Judicial Interpretation
In Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where private transfer deeds described certain locations, but official government maps showed a different position. The Court held that greater evidentiary value must be attached to government-authorised maps, and recitals made by private individuals in documents could not override official records.

Conclusion
Section 82 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strengthens the evidentiary value of maps and plans prepared under governmental authority by attaching a presumption of accuracy to them. This provision promotes certainty, reliability, and judicial efficiency, while ensuring that officially prepared records prevail over private and unverified representations unless convincingly disproved.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam  2023 -Presumption as to Certified Copies of Foreign Judicial Records [Section 88]
​
​Section 88 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the presumption relating to certified copies of judicial records of foreign countries. This provision facilitates the proof of foreign judicial documents by reducing the difficulty involved in formally proving records originating outside India.

Statutory ProvisionSection 88(1): Presumption of Genuineness and AccuracyUnder Section 88(1), the Court may presume that a document purporting to be a certified copy of a judicial record of any country outside India is genuine and accurate, provided that:

• The document appears to be certified, and
• The certification is made in a manner which is certified by a representative of the Central Government in or for that country as being the manner commonly used there for certifying copies of judicial records.

Thus, if the mode of certification conforms to the practice prevalent in the foreign country and is endorsed by an authorised Indian representative, the Court may rely upon the document without requiring strict proof of its authenticity.

Section 88(2): Presumption as to Representative of the Central GovernmentSection 88(2) clarifies who may be treated as a representative of the Central Government for the purpose of certification. It provides that:

• An officer of any territory or place outside India who is a Political Agent, as defined under Section 3(43) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
• Shall be deemed to be a representative of the Central Government in and for the country comprising that territory or place.

This deeming provision ensures certainty and avoids disputes regarding the authority of officials certifying foreign judicial records.

Scope and Nature of the Presumption

• The presumption under Section 88 is discretionary, as indicated by the words “may presume”.
• It extends only to the genuineness and accuracy of the certified copy, and not to the correctness of the judicial findings recorded therein.
• The section does not exclude other modes of proof. A party may still prove a foreign judicial record by other legally recognised methods if certification under Section 88 is not available.

Geographical ScopeSection 88 applies broadly to judicial records of any country beyond India, without limiting its application to specific jurisdictions. This marks a departure from the narrower wording of the corresponding provision in the earlier law, thereby expanding its applicability to judicial records from all foreign countries.

Illustrative PositionIf a party seeks to produce certified copies of court records from a foreign jurisdiction, the Court should not reject such an application merely because certification has not yet been obtained. The party must first be given a reasonable opportunity to:

• Have the documents certified by a recognised representative of the Central Government, or
• Prove them through any other admissible mode of proof.

ConclusionSection 88 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 simplifies the process of proving foreign judicial records by allowing courts to presume the genuineness and accuracy of properly certified copies. By recognising authorised representatives of the Central Government and preserving alternative methods of proof, the provision balances procedural convenience with evidentiary fairness.