IEA to BSA: Complete Section Mapping for Indian Advocates (2024)

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) — Act 47 of 2023 — with effect from July 1, 2024. 152 years of evidence jurisprudence built on IEA provisions now requires careful translation.

For most provisions, the BSA is a renumbering exercise with minor structural consolidation. For a small number of provisions, the changes are significant. And for one cluster — the electronic evidence provisions — the changes are contested, the case law is in flux, and the practical consequences of getting it wrong are severe: electronic evidence that is improperly certified under BSA Section 63 may be inadmissible, and the Arjun Panditrao framework that governed IEA Section 65B is only partially carried forward.

This post maps every major IEA provision to its BSA equivalent, tells you what changed, and gives you the practice guidance you need for evidence matters straddling the July 2024 transition.

What Changed on July 1, 2024

The BSA came into force on July 1, 2024. Section 170 BSA contains the savings provision: all proceedings pending immediately before July 1, 2024 continue under IEA as if BSA had not come into force. Evidence in pending trials continues to be governed by IEA. New proceedings — new suits, new FIRs registerd after July 1, fresh evidence applications — are governed by BSA.

The practical complexity is greater in evidence than in substantive law. Evidence is governed by the law applicable at the time the evidence is tendered — which in ongoing trials may be IEA even if the trial continues after July 1, 2024. In new proceedings under BNS for post-July offences, BSA governs throughout.

The Electronic Evidence Cluster: The Most Important Change in BSA

Before the section-by-section mapping, this cluster demands separate treatment. It affects every case involving digital records — WhatsApp messages, email, CCTV footage, call records, social media posts, server logs, and anything stored on electronic or digital media.

IEA 65A → BSA 62: The Easy Part

IEA Section 65A (special provisions for electronic records) is reproduced in BSA Section 62 with only an internal cross-reference change — "Section 65B" becomes "Section 63." Substantively identical.

IEA 65B → BSA 63: Where It Gets Complicated

IEA Section 65B (admissibility of electronic records) is carried into BSA Section 63 with four significant changes.

Change 1 — Scope expansion. "Computer" in IEA 65B is now "computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer resource, or any communication device" in BSA 63. This expressly brings smartphones, IoT devices, cloud storage, and network infrastructure within the provision. Evidence from mobile phones no longer requires creative interpretation of "computer" — BSA 63 covers it expressly.

Change 2 — Dual signature requirement. The certificate under IEA 65B(4) required the signature of "a person occupying a responsible official position." BSA 63(4) requires two signatures: (a) the responsible person who produced the electronic record, and (b) an expert. Single-signature certificates are insufficient under BSA 63.

Change 3 — Prescribed format with hash values. BSA 63 mandates the certificate follow a prescribed Schedule format. Part A is completed by the producer; Part B by the expert. Both must include hash values — MD5/SHA1/SHA256 — for the electronic record. Hash values were not required under IEA 65B.

Change 4 — Contemporaneous submission. The certificate must be submitted "along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission." Under IEA 65B, the certificate could be supplied later — Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Gorantyal (2020) allowed it to be furnished at any time before the evidence is acted upon. Under BSA 63, it must accompany the electronic record at every submission.

What Survives of Arjun Panditrao

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 held that the certificate under IEA 65B(4) is a sine qua non for admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence — it cannot be waived and the court cannot act on uncertified electronic evidence. This position survives BSA 63 in principle — the certificate requirement is retained and strengthened. What changes is the content and timing of the certificate.

The Kerala HC in Alukkas Jewellery v. Anil (July 2025) took a softer position: absence of a BSA 63 certificate is a "curable defect" relating to mode of proof, not a fundamental admissibility bar. This is in tension with Arjun Panditrao's strict position and has not been resolved by the SC. Until resolution, comply fully with BSA 63 requirements — dual signature, Schedule format, hash values, contemporaneous submission — while preserving the Section 61 and Alukkas arguments in reserve.

Immediate practice guidance for BSA 63 compliance:

Get two signatories before filing any electronic evidence in a post-July 2024 proceeding. The producer's signature alone is insufficient.

Compute hash values for every electronic record being certified. Use MD5 and SHA256 as a minimum — some courts are asking for both.

Use the prescribed Schedule format. Do not use the old IEA 65B format — courts in Delhi and Mumbai have rejected old-format certificates filed in post-July proceedings.

Submit the certificate with the first filing of the electronic record. Do not wait until objection is raised.

If you are the party opposing electronic evidence, challenge: (a) dual signature compliance; (b) hash value provision; (c) expert qualification under BSA 39(2); and (d) contemporaneous submission — all four, simultaneously. The Alukkas "curable defect" approach gives you leverage to seek an opportunity to cure, but it also means the opposing party may get a second chance if you only raise the challenge late.

The 19 Most Important IEA Sections: What They Map To

Confessions and Admissions

IEA 24 + 28 + 29 → BSA 22 (many-to-one merger)

Three IEA provisions are merged into one BSA section. The critical substantive addition: BSA 22 adds "coercion" as an independent ground for excluding confessions — alongside the existing "inducement, threat or promise." Under IEA, coercion had to be argued through general principles and Article 20(3); now there is a direct statutory ground.

Defence counsel in confession matters should expressly cite BSA 22's coercion ground in post-July 2024 proceedings. The Proviso structure (IEA 28 becomes Proviso 1; IEA 29 becomes Proviso 2) consolidates the existing exceptions without changing their substance.

IEA 25 → BSA 23(1)

Confession to police officer not to be proved. Verbatim identical. All case law applies.

IEA 26 → BSA 23(2)

Confession by accused in police custody. Verbatim identical. The Pulukuri Kottaya / Jafarudheen debate on whether the discovery proviso applied to both IEA 25 and IEA 26, or only to IEA 26, is now legislatively resolved — the discovery proviso in BSA appears only after 23(2), applying only to the custody bar, not to the police confession bar. This is a significant clarification favoring the narrower Pulukuri Kottaya position.

IEA 27 → BSA 23, Proviso to sub-s.(2)

Discovery of fact from accused in police custody. The provision is retained as a Proviso to BSA 23(2) with one textual change: "fact thereby discovered" in IEA 27 becomes "fact discovered" in BSA. The deletion of "thereby" could be argued to loosen the causal-nexus requirement between the information given and the fact discovered. Pulukuri Kottaya (1947 PC) held that only the portion of information directly leading to the discovered fact is admissible — defence should proactively argue this causation requirement survives the deletion.

IEA 30 → BSA 24 (with additions)

Co-accused confession in joint trial. Two Explanations added. Explanation I: "offence" now expressly includes abetment and attempt — co-accused confessions can now be used in joint trials for abetment or attempt without the earlier ambiguity. Explanation II: an absconding co-accused does not destroy the "joint trial" character — the trial continues as a joint trial for confession purposes under BNSS 356.

The fundamental standard from Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (1952) is unchanged: co-accused confessions are "consideration" only, not substantive evidence for conviction. Always challenge the sufficiency of corroborating independent evidence.

Hearsay and Dying Declarations

IEA 32 → BSA 26

Statements of persons who are dead or cannot be found. All eight hearsay exceptions (now lettered (a)–(h)) are verbatim retained. The dying declaration exception (IEA 32(1) → BSA 26(a)) is completely unchanged in every element: cause of death must be in question, statement must relate to the circumstances resulting in death, person must have died.

All existing dying declaration jurisprudence applies without change. The absence of any mandatory recording requirement remains — BSA does not require audio-video recording of dying declarations, which has been a criticism from multiple quarters. The voluntariness and consciousness tests continue.

Expert Opinion

IEA 45 + 45A → BSA 39(1) and 39(2) (many-to-one)

IEA 45 listed specific expert domains: foreign law, science, art, handwriting, and finger impressions. BSA 39(1) adds "or any other field" after the enumerated list — expert testimony from unenumerated fields is now expressly permitted. Cyber forensics, DNA analysis, psychiatry, forensic accounting, and specialist medical disciplines are now unambiguously within the expert opinion framework.

BSA 39(2) is verbatim identical to IEA 45A — the IT Act Section 79A Examiner of Electronic Evidence remains the designated expert for electronic evidence. The critical open question: whether BSA 63(4)'s "expert" for the certificate is limited to 79A Examiners (per BSA 39(2)) or covers any technically qualified person. If limited to 79A Examiners, the practical impact is severe.

Burden of Proof

IEA 101 → BSA 104

Burden of proof. Verbatim identical.

IEA 102 → BSA 105

On whom burden lies. Verbatim identical.

IEA 103 → BSA 106

Burden as to particular fact. Verbatim identical.

All burden of proof jurisprudence applies without change.

Presumptions

IEA 113A → BSA 117

Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman. Substantively identical. Only change: cross-reference updated from IPC 498A to BNS 85/86. The "may presume" (discretionary) standard is preserved. The SC in Ram Pyarey v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 71) confirmed the discretionary character of BSA 117 in contrast to the mandatory "shall presume" in BSA 118.

IEA 113B → BSA 118

Presumption as to dowry death. Substantively identical. Cross-reference updated from IPC 304B to BNS 80. The "shall presume" (mandatory) standard is preserved. The same rebuttal standards apply.

IEA 114A → BSA 120 — NOTE THE MAPPING ALERT

Presumption as to absence of consent in rape. Substantively identical. Cross-references updated from IPC 376 to BNS 64(2). The mandatory "shall presume" standard where the victim states she did not consent is preserved.

WARNING: Some secondary sources incorrectly map IEA 114A to BSA Section 111. This is wrong. The correct mapping is BSA Section 120. Verify this before filing any submission — citing BSA 111 for consent presumption in rape cases is a material error.

Witnesses

IEA 118 → BSA 124

Who may testify. The functional competency test is unchanged: can the person understand questions and give rational answers? One terminology update: "lunatic" is replaced by "person of unsound mind" — aligning with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. No substantive change in competency standard.

The SC in State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh (2025) confirmed no minimum age for child witness competence under BSA 124 — a child can testify if they can understand and respond rationally.

IEA 119 → BSA 125 — SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

Witness unable to communicate verbally (formerly "Dumb witnesses"). Two mandatory requirements added — both use "shall," not "may."

First: the court shall take assistance of an interpreter or a special educator when recording the statement of a witness unable to communicate verbally.

Second: the statement shall be videographed.

Both are mandatory. Failure to comply — specifically, failure to videograph — is a procedural defect that should be raised at the earliest opportunity. "Special educator" is undefined in BSA, creating ambiguity on who qualifies.

IEA 133 → BSA 138 — THE MOST IMPORTANT NON-ELECTRONIC CHANGE

This is where the BSA makes its most significant substantive change outside the electronic evidence cluster.

IEA 133 stated: "an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice."

BSA 138 states: "an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice."

Read the two provisions again. IEA 133 said conviction on uncorroborated testimony is not illegal — corroboration was a rule of prudence under IEA 114 Illustration (b), not a rule of law. BSA 138 says conviction is not illegal if testimony is corroborated — by necessary implication, conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony may now be legally insufficient.

This transforms corroboration from a rule of prudence to a statutory rule of law.

The practical consequence: in any post-July 2024 prosecution relying on accomplice testimony, file a specific application at the close of prosecution evidence if the only substantive evidence is an uncorroborated accomplice statement. BSA 138 now gives a statutory foundation for what was previously only a rule of caution under IEA 114 Illustration (b).

IEA 134 → BSA 139

Number of witnesses. Verbatim identical. Quality over quantity principle unchanged.

IEA 145 → BSA 148

Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. Substantively identical provision — but BSA Section 2(d) separately expands the definition of "document" to include electronic and digital records. The practical effect: WhatsApp messages, emails, SMS, and social media communications are unambiguously "writings" for cross-examination purposes under BSA 148. The ambiguity that existed under IEA is resolved. If you are using prior electronic communications to contradict or corroborate a witness, ensure BSA 63 certification is in order for those communications.

Quick Reference Mapping Table

How to Handle Evidence in Mixed IEA/BSA Cases

Pending trials (commenced before July 1, 2024): IEA governs. Evidence tendered before July 2024 under IEA 65B with a compliant certificate remains admissible. Do not attempt to re-certify under BSA 63 for evidence already tendered. If new electronic evidence is being tendered in a pending trial after July 2024, the applicable standard depends on the jurisdiction — several High Courts have held that IEA continues to govern pending proceedings; confirm your court's position.

New proceedings (commenced after July 1, 2024): BSA governs throughout. All electronic evidence must be certified under BSA 63 — dual signature, hash values, Schedule format, contemporaneous submission.

Transitional proceedings (FIR before July 2024, trial commencing after): This is the most contested category. The safest approach is to comply with BSA 63 for all electronic evidence tendered at or after the trial commencement date. Seek directions from the court at the earliest opportunity on which framework governs.

For dying declarations: the IEA 32(1) and BSA 26(a) provisions are verbatim identical. No change in procedure or admissibility standards.

For confessions: in proceedings after July 1, 2024, expressly cite BSA 22's coercion ground for exclusion in addition to the inducement, threat, and promise grounds. The coercion ground is new and strengthens the defence arsenal.

For accomplice evidence: in post-July 2024 proceedings, file a specific application under BSA 138 if conviction rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. The statutory formulation now supports the argument that corroboration is a legal requirement, not merely a rule of caution.

Three Provisions to Watch in 2026 and Beyond

BSA 63 — Electronic evidence certification. The SC has not yet ruled definitively on: (a) who qualifies as the expert for Part B; (b) whether hash values are mandatory; (c) whether BSA Section 61 creates an independent admissibility pathway. These questions will be resolved in the next 18–24 months. The resolution will determine whether the Arjun Panditrao strict approach survives in full force or is softened.

BSA 138 — Accomplice corroboration. The SC has not yet addressed whether BSA 138's "corroborated" formulation creates a mandatory rule of law or merely codifies a rule of caution. If the SC holds it is a rule of law, a large number of convictions resting on uncorroborated accomplice testimony may be vulnerable to challenge. If the SC holds it is merely a restatement, the pre-BSA position continues.

BSA 23, Proviso — Discovery of fact. The "thereby" deletion's effect on the Pulukuri Kottaya causation standard has not been judicially addressed. Until it is, argue the deletion is non-substantive.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the IEA still apply after July 1, 2024?

For proceedings that were pending immediately before July 1, 2024, IEA continues to apply per Section 170 BSA. For new proceedings initiated after July 1, 2024, BSA governs. The critical determination is the commencement date of the proceeding, not the date of the underlying facts.

Is an IEA 65B certificate still valid in ongoing trials?

Yes. For proceedings pending before July 1, 2024, IEA continues to govern the tendering of electronic evidence. A compliant IEA 65B(4) certificate remains valid for those proceedings. Do not attempt to retroactively apply BSA 63 requirements to evidence already certified under IEA 65B in pending trials.

What is the difference between BSA Section 61 and BSA Section 63?

BSA Section 61 is a new provision with no IEA equivalent. It states that nothing in BSA shall operate to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record on the grounds that it is in electronic form, "subject to section 63." BSA Section 63 (the successor to IEA 65B) sets out the certification requirements for electronic records. The tension between these two provisions — whether BSA 61 creates an independent admissibility route or whether "subject to section 63" makes 63 controlling — is unresolved. No court has definitively ruled on this.

Is the Arjun Panditrao judgment still good law under BSA?

The core principle of Arjun Panditrao — that a certificate is required for electronic records to be admitted as secondary evidence — survives and is strengthened in BSA 63. What changes is the certificate's required content (dual signature, expert, hash values, Schedule format) and timing (must accompany the record at submission, not later). The Kerala HC's Alukkas position that non-compliance is a "curable defect" is in tension with Arjun Panditrao's strict position. The SC has not resolved this.

What is BSA 138's practical effect on accomplice testimony?

BSA 138 changes the corroboration requirement from a rule of prudence to a potentially mandatory rule of law. In post-July 2024 proceedings, challenge any conviction that rests solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony using BSA 138 as a statutory basis. The SC has not yet ruled definitively on whether BSA 138 creates a mandatory rule of law, so preserve the argument while also contesting the sufficiency of corroborating evidence on the facts.

How do I certify a WhatsApp message under BSA Section 63?

You need: (1) Part A of the prescribed Schedule completed and signed by the person responsible for the WhatsApp account or the device from which the data was extracted — this is your "producer" signature; (2) Part B completed and signed by a technically qualified expert who has examined the extracted data — this is your "expert" signature; (3) hash values (MD5, SHA256) for the extracted data computed by the expert; (4) the certificate submitted together with the first filing of the messages in court. Use the BSA Schedule format — the old IEA format is not sufficient.

Is corroboration of an accomplice's evidence now mandatory under BSA?

BSA 138 creates a stronger statutory basis for requiring corroboration than existed under IEA 133. Under IEA, conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony was explicitly stated to be not illegal — corroboration was a rule of caution. Under BSA 138, conviction "is not illegal if it proceeds on corroborated testimony" — which implies by necessary implication that conviction on uncorroborated testimony may now be legally insufficient. The SC has not yet definitively resolved whether BSA 138 creates a mandatory rule of law. Until it does, treat corroboration as legally required while also contesting sufficiency on the facts.