Admissibility of Digital Evidence under Bhartiya Shakhya Adhiniyam, 2023: Balancing Data Privacy and Challenges in Light of the DPDP Act, 2023
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69974/glslawjournal.v8i2.214Keywords:
Digital Evidence, Right to Privacy, Data Protection, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Digital ForensicsAbstract
The introduction of new criminal laws has introduced overarching changes in the criminal justice system. The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 includes electronic records as documents and lays down the procedure for proving its admissibility under section 63. However, there remain gaping loopholes in its operation, especially since proving the authenticity of digital records has been a matter of judicial debate recently. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, designed to protect data privacy of individuals, prescribes strict accords for handling, storing, recording and transmission of data. This article aims to identify the points of conflict between the two legislations and suggests measures that can be employed to arrive at a harmonious resolve. The objectives sought to be achieved by these contemporary laws is making adequate usage of modern technology in administration of justice and protection of data privacy of individuals, while public welfare remains the end goal.
Downloads
References
Sarkar law of evidence: In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Ceylon, Malaysia & Singapore, (2016).
Ministry of Home Affairs available at: https://www.mha.gov.in/en/commoncontent/new-criminal-laws (last visited October 10, 2024).
Times of India available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/digital-personal-data-protection-bill-now-an-act-receives-presidents-assent/articleshow/102674040.cms (last visited October 11, 2024).
K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), s. 65A.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570.
Anvar P.V v. P.K Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.
Shafi Mohammad v. State of H.P, (2018) 2 SCC 801.
Supra note 10.
Supra Note 11.
BSA 2023 s. 2(1)(d).
A.F Moussa, A.F. Electronic evidence and its authenticity in forensic evidence, 11 Egypt J Forensic Science 20 (2021).
Supra note 15
BSA 2023 S.61
PRS India available at: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nyaya-second-sanhita-2023 (last visited on October 14, 2024).
BSA 2023 s.62.
BSA 2023 s. 63(1).
Id.
Chhtrapati, D., Chaudhari, S. P., Mevada, D., Bhatt, A., & Trivedi, D. (2021). Research Productivity and Network Visualization on Digital Evidence: A Bibliometric Study. Science & Technology Libraries, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262x.2021.1948486
Id.
Supra Note 9.
Khilansha Mukhija and Shreyas Jaiswal, “Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in light of European Union’s GDPR” 4.1 JCLJ 654 (2023).
DPDPA, 2023 (Act 22 of 2023), s. 3(a).
Id.
Supra note 4
DPDPA, 2023 (Act 22 of 2023), s. 2(j).
Id.
GDRP, Art. 5.
Kermina Minoo Patel, The 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act: Evaluating its strength in protecting citizens data, 4.1 JCLJ 454 (2023).
Supra note 29.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act. 21 of 2000), s. 72A.
Shiv Shankar Singh, “Privacy and Data Protection in India: Critical Assessment” 53 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 663-677 (2011).
Malvika Jayaram, “The Business of Privacy: From Private Anxiety to Commercial Sense? A Broad Overview of Why Privacy Ough to Matter to Indian Businesses,” 4 NUJS L Rev 597.
IT Act 2000 s. 43A.
DPDPA 2023 (Act 22 of 2023), s. 33.
Lexology, available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1f7752ab-eb0a-467b-ac23-746c5888d29f (last visited on October 14, 2024).
DPDPA 2023 (Act 22 of 2023), s. 33(2).
Supra Note 32.
Anirudh Burman, “Understanding India’s New Data Protection Law” Carniege Endowment for International Peace (2023),
DPDPA (Act 22 of 2023), s. 37(1).
Malhotra, C., & Malhotra, U, “Putting Interests of Digital Nagriks First: Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 of India.” Indian Journal of Public Administration, 70(3), 516-531 (2023).
Supra Note 4.
In District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, AIR 2005 SC 186.
BSA 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s. 57, exp. 4.
BNS, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), s. 152.
Telecommunications Acts, 2023.
Rajesh Vellakkat, “Data Privacy Rights and Informed Consent” PL (IT) 80 (September, 2015).
BSA, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s. 17(1)(b).
Id.
Aanandita Aneja, “Tracing the development of the Right to Privacy in India” 3.2 JCLJ 1350 (2023),
Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
Gobind v. State of M.P, (1975) 2 SCC 148.
PUCL v. UOI, AIR 2003 SC 2363.
Supra Note 59.
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5.
Helen Nissenbaum, Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The Problem of Privacy in Public, 17(5) Law & Philosophy 559 (1998),
The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), s. 185(1).
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023) s. 57.
Supra Note 10.
N.S Nappinai, “Electronic Evidence- The Great Indian Quagmire” 3 SCC J-41 (2019).
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.
Supra note 10
Supra Note 11.
Supra Note 4.
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, C 131/12.
Michael L. Rustad, Sanna Kulveska, “Reconceptualizing the right to be forgotten to enable transatlantic data flow,” 28 Harv JL& Tech 349 (2015).
Abhinav Shrivastava, “Data Rights 2.0: Shifting Sands of Usage Rights in User-Data”, 2.2 JIPS 54 (2019).
Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, Government of India (2012).
Manupatra available at: https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Right-to-be-forgotten (last visited October 14. 2024).
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act 22 of 2023), s. 12(1).
GDPR, art. 17.
Tejashree J., “The need for the right to be forgotten in India”, 5.1 RFMLR 106 (2018).
IT Act (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2009), s. 43A.
Khushbu Jain, “The crossroads of Privacy and Digital Evidence” The Sunday Guardian, January 14, 2024.
Caratube International Oil Co. LLP v. The Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13.
Paras Marya, “A Relook at the admissibility of illegally or improperly obtained evidence” 8 NLIU Law Review 284 (2019).
Talha Abdul Rahman, “Fruits of the Poisoned Tree: Should Illegally obtained evidence be admissible?” S-38 PL May (2011).
Supra Note 26.
Law Commission, Evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly, (Law Com No 94, 1983) Ch.10A.
Makhdoom Syed Muhammad Baqir; Saleem, Shahzad; and Zulqarnain, Roha (2017) "Protecting Digital Evidence Integrity and Preserving Chain of Custody," Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 12, Article 12.
Borquez P, Importance of chain of custody of evidences, Europe PMC (June 1, 2011).
Devesh Banwani & Yatin Kalra, “Maintaining and Evaluating the Integrity of Digital Evidence in Chain of Custody” 10 IJRTE 90-96 (2021).
Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 20 SCC 196.
Rohas Nagpal, “Cyber Crime & Digital Evidence-Indian Perspective,” Asian School of Cyber Laws (2008).
Swati Mehta, “Cyber Forensics and Admissibility of Digital Evidence,” PL January S-23 (2012).
Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 666.
Supra Note 69.
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471.
IT Act 2008 (Act 10 of 2009), s. 69.
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.
Lekshmi G.R., “Electronic Surveillance-A Tool for Invasion of Privacy,” 32, 224, 224, (2008).
BNSS 2023 s. 176(3), proviso
Raveena Rai, “Challenges to Cyber Crime Investigation: A need for statutory and Infrastructural Reforms” 5 CNLU LJ 62 (2015).
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), s. 176(3).
Supra Note 101,
BNSS, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), s. 185(1).
Id.
Drishti Jain& Vagisha Sagar, “Digital Forensics Tools for Social Media Investigations: Special Emphasis on User Privacy” 2.1 DSNLUJ SCI Tech L 43 (2022).
Supra Note 83.
Christopher L.T. Brown, “Computer Evidence, Collection & Preservation” Charles River Media, Hingham MA (2006).
Dr. G.K. Goswami, “Spreading Wings of Forensic Science”, 9 SCC J-18 (2023).
Kuruma Kaniu v. The Queen, (1955) AC 197.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, writ petition (civil) no. 1082/2022.
BSA, s. 57.
Nivrutti v. State of Maharashtra Through Police Officer and Anr., 2024 SCC Online Bom 3068.
Archana Sarma, “Cyber Stalking and The Plight of Women in India- A Legal Perspective” 9 RMLNLUJ 175 (2017).
Supra Note 94.
Supra Note 10.
Dhurben Guraldas Balani v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 1 GLH 680.
Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, (2016) 15 SCC 485.
Supra Note 63.
Science Direct available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096969892300125X (October 14, 2024).
Supra Note 107.
Supra Note 76.
Dr. G.K Goswami and Aditi Goswami, “Navigating Forensic Evidence under India’s New Legal Landscape” 1 SCC J 7 (2024).
Supra Note 89.
