Understanding Blockchain Evidence in Indian Courts: Admissibility and Section 65B

Blockchain evidence in Indian courts is becoming increasingly relevant as disputes involving digital assets, smart contracts and distributed ledger records reach judicial forums. Courts are now asked to evaluate transaction hashes, timestamps and immutable ledgers as proof of facts. While Indian law does not contain a separate statute for blockchain evidence, existing evidence law and technology statutes provide a framework for admissibility. Understanding how courts assess such evidence is essential for litigants, lawyers and businesses relying on blockchain based records. This blog explains how blockchain evidence is treated under Indian law, the role of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, judicial trends and practical compliance considerations.

What Is Blockchain Evidence?

Blockchain evidence refers to information recorded on a distributed ledger that can be produced before a court to establish facts. This may include transaction records, smart contract execution logs, wallet balances, timestamps and cryptographic hashes. Unlike traditional electronic records stored on a central server, blockchain data is decentralised and resistant to alteration. Each entry is time stamped and linked to previous records. This structure enhances integrity but also raises questions about presentation, certification and interpretation. Courts do not assess blockchain evidence based on novelty alone. They examine whether the evidence satisfies statutory requirements applicable to electronic records.

Blockchain Evidence in Indian Courts and the Legal Framework

Blockchain evidence in Indian courts is examined primarily under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with the Information Technology Act, 2000. These laws recognise electronic records and prescribe conditions for admissibility. The Evidence Act defines electronic records broadly. Blockchain records fall within this definition. The key challenge is not recognition but compliance with procedural requirements. Section 65B of the Evidence Act governs admissibility of electronic evidence. Courts require strict adherence to its conditions unless exceptional circumstances apply. Blockchain evidence must therefore be presented in a manner consistent with this provision. Judicial decisions emphasise procedural compliance over technological sophistication.

Understanding Section 65B of the Evidence Act

Section 65B lays down conditions under which electronic records are admissible as evidence. It requires certification confirming the manner of production, integrity of the system and authenticity of the record. For blockchain evidence, the certificate must explain how the data was accessed, extracted and preserved. It should identify the device or system used. It should confirm regular use and proper functioning at the relevant time. Courts have clarified that absence of a proper certificate can render electronic evidence inadmissible. This applies equally to blockchain based records. The Supreme Court has reinforced the mandatory nature of Section 65B in several judgments. These rulings guide lower courts when assessing blockchain evidence.

Who Can Issue a Section 65B Certificate for Blockchain Data?

The certificate must be issued by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the system. In blockchain matters, this may include exchange operators, platform administrators or technical custodians. In decentralised systems, identifying a certifying authority becomes complex. Courts may accept certification from entities that accessed and produced the data lawfully, provided they can explain system reliability. Expert affidavits often supplement certification. They help courts understand how blockchain systems function and why the data is reliable. Failure to plan certification at an early stage may weaken evidentiary value.

Judicial Attitude Towards Blockchain Evidence

Indian courts have shown openness towards blockchain based records, particularly where integrity and traceability are demonstrated. Courts recognise that blockchain reduces tampering risk. However, this does not remove procedural obligations. Judges focus on whether the evidence proves the fact in issue. They assess relevance, authenticity and compliance. Technology does not replace legal standards. Some courts have acknowledged blockchain as a tool for preserving evidence integrity. Pilot projects supported by the judiciary explore blockchain for case management and record keeping. Government initiatives such as JudiciaryChain reflect institutional interest in secure digital evidence systems. Information on these initiatives is available through official government technology portals.

Blockchain Evidence in Civil and Commercial Disputes

In civil disputes, blockchain evidence often appears in contract enforcement, property transactions and intellectual property matters. Smart contract execution logs may demonstrate performance or breach. Courts examine whether blockchain records reflect mutual intent and lawful agreement. Supporting documentation strengthens evidentiary value. Commercial disputes involving crypto exchanges or token platforms rely on transaction histories and wallet records. Accurate presentation and certification become critical. In complex commercial litigation, parties often consult the best blockchain law firm and lawyers in India to structure evidence and ensure compliance with evidentiary rules.

Blockchain Evidence in Criminal and Regulatory Proceedings

Blockchain evidence also features in criminal cases involving fraud, money laundering and cyber offences. Investigating agencies trace transaction flows across wallets and exchanges. Courts assess whether blockchain data links the accused to alleged offences. They also examine chain of custody and data extraction methods. Regulatory proceedings under financial and anti-money laundering laws rely on blockchain analytics. Compliance records and reporting logs may be produced as evidence. Entities subject to reporting obligations must maintain records in a manner that supports admissibility. This includes compliance with the FIU-IND Registration process, which requires proper record keeping and disclosure protocols.

Challenges in Admitting Blockchain Evidence

Despite its technical strength, blockchain evidence faces practical challenges. One challenge is explaining complex technology in simple terms to courts. Expert testimony becomes essential. Another challenge involves private keys and access control. Courts may question how access was obtained and whether data extraction was authorised. Cross border blockchain data introduces jurisdiction issues. Evidence may be stored or verified across multiple jurisdictions. Courts examine applicable law and cooperation mechanisms. Absence of standardised guidelines for blockchain evidence creates uncertainty. Each case depends on facts and presentation quality.

Best Practices for Using Blockchain Evidence in Court

Preparation is key. Parties should preserve blockchain data promptly. They should document access methods and maintain logs. Legal teams should coordinate with technical experts early. This ensures compliance with Section 65B and avoids last minute issues. Supporting evidence such as contracts, emails and witness statements strengthens blockchain based claims. Courts prefer corroboration. Clear explanations improve judicial understanding. Over reliance on technical jargon may undermine credibility.

Future of Blockchain Evidence in Indian Courts

As blockchain adoption increases, courts will encounter such evidence more frequently. Judicial familiarity will improve over time. Legislative reforms may clarify electronic evidence rules further. Judicial training initiatives already address emerging technologies. Government backed blockchain projects may standardise evidentiary practices. This could reduce uncertainty and improve consistency. For now, compliance with existing law remains the safest approach.