Posts

Decoding Section 63(4) of BSA, 2023: Supreme Court Settles the Controversy on Hash Values and Expert Certificates in Pune Bar Association v. UOI : Electronic Evidence under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: Why the Supreme Court Upheld Section 63(4) and Redefined "Expert" Criteria : The Digital Fingerprint of Law: Supreme Court's Landmark Clarification on Hash Values, Expert Signatures, and BSA Section 63(4)

-
1. Introduction The transition from the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to the newly enacted Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), has triggered intense academic and courtroom debates . At the absolute center of this legal shift is Section 63(4) of the BSA , which introduces rigorous statutory prerequisites for admitting secondary electronic records into evidence . In a significant order passed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India and Others (2026) , the apex court evaluated the constitutional validity of this stringent new regime . The petitioner challenged the mandatory requirements of disclosing "hash values" and procuring expert signatures, calling them "manifestly arbitrary" and excessively burdensome for ordinary litigants . This landmark judgment clears the air on electronic evidence authentication, providing essential clarity for contemporary litigation, future judicial exams, and technological ad...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Case Involving a Long-Term Consensual Relationship Quashing Criminal Proceedings For Rape And Unnatural Sex: Must Read

-
The Court clarified the legal distinction between a "false promise of marriage" and a "breach of promise," emphasizing that prolonged physical intimacy often indicates consensual cohabitation rather than deception . Case Background The appellant and the complainant met through a matrimonial site in 2017 . At the time, both parties were still legally married to their respective spouses . The complainant alleged that the appellant lured her with a promise of marriage, leading to sexual intercourse against her will in October 2017 . However, she did not file a complaint until February 2021 . Key Findings of the Court The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings based on the following observations: Knowledge and Consent: Both parties were aware of each other’s existing marriages . The complainant even created a matrimonial profile and entered the relationship before her divorce was finalized in 2018 . Prolonged Relationship: The parties travele...
Post a Comment
Read more