Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
India's Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), enacted in 2023, replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and updates how courts handle electronic records. That update arrives as artificial intelligence reshapes how evidence gets created and analysed. Facial recognition, predictive policing tools, deepfake detection systems, and forensic algorithms now generate a category of evidence the drafters of 1872 could not have anticipated, and even the BSA's 2023 framers addressed only in passing. The objective of this paper is to analyse how the mentioned clauses, Sections 63, 81, and 82, have dealt with AI-created works and whether these clauses are satisfactory in light of the judgments made by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanra Gorantyal. Comparing India's approach with evidentiary practice in the UK, the US, and the EU, the paper identifies epistemic and procedural gaps in India's legislative structure, particularly around black-box algorithms whose outputs resist the kind of scrutiny certificate requirements were built for. It closes with proposed reforms to both the statutory text and courtroom procedure for admitting AI-derived evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nama et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: