Proving an E-Signed Contract in Court: Audit Trails and the Section 63 Certificate Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Since July 2024, electronic contracts are proved in Indian courts under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, not section 65B. What an audit trail must contain, what the certificate must say, and how to produce both from your contract system.
Many e-signature guides still tell Indian readers to prepare a "section 65B certificate". That section belonged to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was repealed when the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024 (notification S.O. 849(E), 23 February 2024). The replacement is section 63, and the practical question for a business is the same as before: when a counterparty denies signing, what do you hand the court? Position as of October 2026.
The legal frame in three sections
- Section 61 provides that electronic or digital records are not denied admissibility merely because they are electronic.
- Section 63(1) treats information in an electronic record that is printed, stored or copied ("computer output") as a document, admissible without producing the original, if the section's conditions are met.
- Section 63(2) sets four conditions: the output was produced by a computer or communication device used regularly for the activity; information of that kind was regularly fed into it in the ordinary course of that activity; the device was operating properly, or any fault did not affect the record; and the record reproduces or derives from information so fed.
- Section 63(4) requires a certificate, each time the record is submitted, that (a) identifies the record and describes how it was produced, (b) gives particulars of the device sufficient to show it was a qualifying computer or communication device, and (c) deals with the conditions in sub-section (2), signed by a person in charge of the device or the relevant activity, stated to the best of that person's knowledge and belief.
The Supreme Court's decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (14 July 2020), decided under the predecessor section 65B, held the certificate to be a condition precedent to admitting electronic evidence, dispensed with only where the original device itself is produced, and allowed a party unable to obtain the certificate to seek a court direction for it. Courts applying section 63 can be expected to follow the same approach.
What this means for an e-signed contract
The "original" of an e-signed agreement is the record on the signing platform's system. You will almost never produce that server in court. So you will rely on a copy (the signed PDF and its audit trail) and you will need the section 63(4) certificate from the person responsible for the system that produced them. Two consequences:
- Your audit trail must contain enough to satisfy a court that the signature was made by the counterparty.
- Your provider, or your own IT function if self-hosted, must be able to issue the certificate on request, years after signing.
What the audit trail should contain
| Element | Why |
|---|---|
| Document hash (e.g., SHA-256) at the moment of signing | Shows the document has not changed |
| Signature method (DSC, Aadhaar eSign, platform) and certificate details | Links signature to identity under IT Act ss. 3, 3A |
| Identity verification events (OTP to which number, Aadhaar e-KYC response, email verification) | Who signed |
| Timestamps for send, view, sign and completion, with time source | When; CERT-In's 2022 Directions require NTP-synchronised clocks for covered entities |
| IP address and device information | Where and how |
| Version history and who uploaded the final document | Which document |
| Dispatch and delivery records | That the counterparty received it |
Keep this trail with the executed file, not in a separate log that is purged.
The certificate: who signs it and what it says
The person "in charge" of the system or the activity: for a hosted platform, an officer of the provider; for an in-house system, the IT or records owner. The certificate should identify the contract by its hash and reference, describe the platform and the signing flow, state that the system was used regularly for executing documents and was operating properly on the date, and attach the audit trail. It is signed to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief.
Ask any provider: "Can you issue a section 63 certificate for a document signed five years ago?" If the answer is unclear, so is your evidence.
Retention
A contract claim is generally subject to a three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963, running from when the right to sue accrues, which can be years after signing for a long-term agreement. Retain the executed record and its audit trail for the contract term plus the limitation period, and longer where other law requires (eight years for books of account under section 128 of the Companies Act, 2013). For personal data in the record, reconcile this with the erasure duty in section 8(7) of the DPDP Act, 2023, which yields where retention "is necessary for compliance with any law for the time being in force".
Where Legatio fits. Legatio stores the executed document, its hash and the full audit trail together, and provides the record in a form from which a section 63 certificate can be issued. The evidentiary requirements apply to every platform.
Position stated as of October 2026. General information, not legal advice; litigation strategy should be settled with counsel.