Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 85
Presumption as to electronic agreements
The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the electronic or digital signature of the parties was so concluded by affixing the electronic or digital signature of the parties.
Why this exists
As business and government moved to digital contracts, laws needed a way to treat electronic signatures with the same practical trust as handwritten ones. This provision, carried forward from Section 85A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (introduced via the Information Technology Act, 2000), helps courts avoid demanding fresh proof for every digitally signed agreement, encouraging confidence in e-commerce and digital governance while still allowing the presumption to be challenged with evidence.
How courts read it
Courts have generally treated this kind of presumption as rebuttable — meaning a party can still challenge the authenticity of the signature or agreement by presenting evidence, such as showing fraud, tampering, or lack of authority. Judgments under the analogous Evidence Act provision have emphasized that the presumption shifts the initial burden of proof but does not make the electronic agreement conclusively unchallengeable.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This provision means electronic contracts can never be challenged in court.
Fact: The presumption can be rebutted; a party can still present evidence to show the signature was faked, misused, or invalid. - Myth: Any typed name or scanned signature on an email counts under this provision.
Fact: The section applies specifically to electronic or digital signatures as legally defined (often requiring authentication technology like digital signature certificates), not just any informal electronic mark (simplified).