Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 90
Presumption as to electronic messages
The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.
Why this exists
This provision continues a rule first added to Indian evidence law (as Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) after email and electronic communication became common, to make it easier for courts to rely on electronic messages without demanding proof at every step that the technical transmission process worked correctly. At the same time, lawmakers were careful to separate 'did the message arrive unaltered' from 'who pressed send' — because email accounts can be hacked, shared, spoofed, or accessed by someone other than the account owner. The provision therefore builds in a technical presumption while leaving the human question of authorship to be proved with other evidence.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A printed email is automatic proof of who sent it.
Fact: The law only lets courts presume the message wasn't altered during transmission; identity of the actual sender must be proved through other evidence like login records or testimony. - Myth: This section makes all email evidence automatically admissible and conclusive.
Fact: It creates a limited, rebuttable presumption about message integrity, not a blanket rule of proof or authenticity of authorship.