Unmasking the Rhetoric of Reform – The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 in Context

This legislative comment is a critical analysis of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (‘BSA’), which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’). It analyses the major changes brought in by the BSA and discusses their implications. It further highlights the existing interpretive disputes within the IEA that the BSA leaves unaddressed. The BSA makes only a few substantive changes in improvement to the IEA, such as streamlining the rules on electronic evidence and expanding the scope of secondary evidence. Apart from this, most changes pertain to the renumbering of existing provisions and the deletion of obsolete colonial references. These could just as easily have been achieved through an amendment to the IEA. All major rules of evidence on relevancy, presumptions, burdens of proof, examination of witnesses, etc., remain unchanged by the BSA. The BSA is also replete with shoddy drafting errors, some of which remain unaddressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee's intervention. The article argues that the BSA is effectively an episodic amendment of IEA masquerading as an exercise in reform.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
National Law School of India Review
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.55496/yrtf3099
Primary Topic
South Asian Studies and Conflicts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Unmasking the Rhetoric of Reform – The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 in Context

P. R. P. Verma
National Law School of India Review
South Asian Studies and Conflicts
article

Unmasking the Rhetoric of Reform – The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 in Context

P. R. P. Verma
article en

Abstract

This legislative comment is a critical analysis of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (‘BSA’), which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’). It analyses the major changes brought in by the BSA and discusses their implications. It further highlights the existing interpretive disputes within the IEA that the BSA leaves unaddressed. The BSA makes only a few substantive changes in improvement to the IEA, such as streamlining the rules on electronic evidence and expanding the scope of secondary evidence. Apart from this, most changes pertain to the renumbering of existing provisions and the deletion of obsolete colonial references. These could just as easily have been achieved through an amendment to the IEA. All major rules of evidence on relevancy, presumptions, burdens of proof, examination of witnesses, etc., remain unchanged by the BSA. The BSA is also replete with shoddy drafting errors, some of which remain unaddressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee's intervention. The article argues that the BSA is effectively an episodic amendment of IEA masquerading as an exercise in reform.

National Law School of India ReviewVol. 36(1)
National Law School of India University (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
South Asian Studies and Conflicts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.