Presumption as to electronic messages.
What this section does
The Court may presume that an electronic message forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee corresponds with the message as fed into the originator's computer for transmission. However, the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.
AI-generated plain-language summary. For the binding statutory text, see India Code (official).
The rule in one line
Court may presume an e-mail message corresponds to what was fed into the sender's computer, but cannot presume who sent it.
When it applies
- An email produced in court purportedly sent by a party may be presumed to correspond with the message as originally composed and fed into the computer, but the court cannot presume the named sender actually sent it.
- In a contract dispute, an email chain is produced — the court may presume the content matches what was transmitted, but identity of the sender must be separately proved.
Practitioner note
The prohibition on presuming the identity of the sender is significant in cybercrime and contract cases where spoofing or unauthorised access is alleged.
Derived from IEA s.88A.
Read the official text
For the binding statutory text of BSA Section 90, refer to the Gazette of India or the India Code official website.
Why this matters
BSA Section 90 forms part of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which replaced the Indian Evidence Act 1872 on 1 July 2024. Any new filing, FIR, charge sheet, or bail application made on or after that date should cite the new section number. References to the old act in legacy documents remain valid for matters that arose before the changeover.