[Sarah Unhelkar is a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NLU Jodhpur. She is interested in Tech Law and Gender Studies. In this piece she argues that blockchain-based smart contracts are time and cost-efficient than the statutorily (BSA and IT Act) mandated Certificates, to verify the Chain of Custody. This is especially because smart contracts can effectively store, process, and update the digital evidence and reduce the room for tampering, and prevent human errors and procedural delays.]
Introduction
Blockchain–based smart contracts (“Smart Contracts”) have attracted attention from Judges, Lawyers, and Academicians as a possible solution to the complex issue of preserving and maintaining the sanctity of “digital evidence.” Digital Evidence includes the storage and transmission of any information in digital form, such as emails, social media interactions, files, audio, photos, and metadata, that may be used in court. It is admissible in the courts under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. To preserve the integrity of digital evidence, maintenance of the Chain of Custody (CoC), which is the process of validating how the evidence has been gathered, tracked, and protected before it’s presented in court- is vital. Digital evidence can be admissible in court only if the CoC is guaranteed through certificates.
Hence, the CoC must be identified at every stage of the trial, which is a very time-consuming process and not entirely tamper-proof, given the advanced anti-forensic techniques used by hackers or persons of interest to erase evidence. Blockchain-based smart contracts can solve this difficulty as they use cryptography and time stamps for recording and storing transactions, and the decentralised environment allows open-source storage of information, in which each ledger’s information is confirmable by every participating computer.
Therefore, this piece argues that smart contracts can effectively store, process, and update the digital evidence and reduce the room for tampering, and prevent human errors and procedural delays. This essay starts with a broad overlook of the contemporary framework on Digital Evidence in Section I and lays down a conceptual understanding of smart contracts in Section II, which supplements the argument of using smart contracts to preserve digital evidence in Section III. Lastly, the author suggests how the idea can be translated into reality through a comparative analysis and how it could fit India’s model in Section IV. The essay ends with concluding remarks encapsulating the essence of the central argument in Section V.
India’s framework on digital evidence
The Information Technology Act (“IT Act”), enacted in 2000, first recognised the legal validity of “electronic records” in Sections 4 and 6. Subsequently, Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act was introduced to accommodate the IT Act. The provision allowed any electronic record, like emails, computer files, text messages, and social media content, to be admitted as evidence in court. The evidence had to be accompanied by a certificate, signed by a person in a responsible position overseeing the operation of the device from which the electronic record was generated, to ensure authenticity and integrity. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao reiterated the statutory mandate laid down in Section 65 B and ruled that Section 65–A and B completely govern the admissibility of digital evidence to the exclusion of other provisions in the Act.
The essence of Section 65 B has been incorporated in Section 63, BSA. The most notable reform is that electronic records have now been classified as primary evidence only if they comply with the certification requirement, thereby putting them on the same pedestal as traditional documentary evidence. Thus, the burden of proof of proving the authenticity of the evidence shifts onto those challenging the evidence. In essence, the requirement of certification is still a precursor to the shift in burden of proof.
Some other prominent reforms include a two-tiered verification process by the person operating the device and a certifying “expert”. The court’s observation in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal clarified that an expert witness is someone who has the necessary scientific and domain knowledge to assess technical evidence. Thirdly, the certificates required under Section 65B(4) have to be provided by the party tendering the electronic evidence and by the expert mandating the recording of the hash value (a numeric value of a fixed length of data that is used to identify data) of the electronic evidence at the time of submission of such a certificate. The reform is a step in the right direction, as it can ensure any alteration to the records can be detected by comparing the original and subsequent hash values.
However, this has its own limitations; for example, hashes verify the data only when it’s generated and not before it, nor do they secure the chain of custody of the evidence. The reliability of the process still depends on human intermediaries like the expert and the litigant. Blockchain-based smart contracts can provide a self-executing, decentralised, and transparent framework that does not require human intervention. Since each transaction is time-stamped and recorded in multiple nodes simultaneously, the data is immutable and verifiable at every stage. Smart Contracts can also automate the chain of custody, offering limited access to authorised persons. This minimizes human intervention and enhances accountability and authenticity.
The following section explores the utility of smart contracts in this context by delving into the concept and application of the same.
Understanding how smart contracts work on blockchain technology
The idea of smart contracts was first introduced by Nick Szabo in 1994, who described them as digital protocols that automatically execute pre-defined terms once certain conditions are met. In essence, “Smart Legal Contracts” consist of “smart contract code,” which is the programme/code embedded in the blocks or ledger that requires certain preconditions to be fulfilled for the contract to be executed. The code can be either the sole manifestation of the agreement or it could complement a traditional contract and execute certain provisions, such as transferring funds from X Party to Y Party. Any blockchain consists of multiple nodes, and each node acts as a commanding executor and a decentralised ledger, simultaneously. It serves as a platform where smart contracts are automatically executed while recording every change to ensure a verifiable and tamper-proof trail of actions and access.
For example, evidence like a cctv clip when stored on a blockchain will generate a unique hash, and subsequent evidence like emails or chats can be added to create a chain of custody. The addition or modification of evidence will be reflected on all nodes simultaneously. This immutable nature of the blockchain ensures that every block contains the hash of the previous block, and the data on the block cannot be altered without modifying the data on subsequent blocks. Additionally, smart contracts will allow access only to authorised persons, for example, a condition like “only a person with abc , xyz and lmn can access the evidence.”
Smart Contracts for Preserving and Processing Evidence
Smart contracts can be utilised by the judiciary in multiple ways. China’s “smart contracts” scheme is one of the classical examples of integrating blockchain in the judiciary. First launched by the Hangzhou Internet Court in 2019, blockchain is used to store and verify digital evidence like contracts, IP violations, and online transaction records. The courts can immediately verify the evidence due to encryption and time stamping, eliminating the need for expert verification, making the process less time-consuming. Similarly, Estonia’s e-justice programme uses a KSI (Keyless Signature Infrastructure) blockchain to secure public records like legal filings, court documents, and procedural logs. Hence, any alteration to official data is immediately detectable and traceable. Estonia has significantly reduced administrative costs through maintaining an immutable audit trail and reducing human intervention.
Hence, compared to traditional preservation systems, smart contracts have multiple benefits. In the present framework, the CoC (evidence produced in the court is the same as when it was first collected) is maintained by heavy manual documentation and retrospective certification. Smart contracts, on the other hand, can automatically log every action taken on a piece of evidence, and each transaction is immutably recorded and time-stamped. Smart contracts can be deployed on the current forensic tools to record time stamps and admission of evidence through hashes and digital signatures, enabling an automated Chain of custody
Secondly, Smart Contracts can guarantee real-time authentication by deploying a Ledger Database, which is a centralised database for universal authentication and verification across applications involving mutually distrusting parties. The core feature of a ledger database is that it adds new data sequentially without erasing the original data. For example, the evidence was uploaded on 10th December, 2025, and updated on 15th December; the ledger database would maintain both of these entries in a trail, ensuring transparency and real-time authentication.
Thirdly, Smart contracts can ensure coherent and consistent Inter-Court and Inter-Agency Sharing. They can make sharing electronic evidence across courts, agencies, and jurisdictions easy and less cumbersome. Ledger Database can ensure customised disclosures, in case of sensitive data, and centralised validity of each transaction that can prevent unauthorised interference.
Fourthly, the automated and independent design of smart contracts can protect sensitive data and evidence by controlled and conditional disclosure. Smart contracts can be trained on Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP) protocols – a method of verifying a user without revealing important data. The evidence can be programmed to appear in redacted form in public, and complete access can be limited to judges and authorised parties. Additionally, smart contracts can also detect if there has been any manipulation with the evidence due to their hashing and time-stamping methods.
Lastly, smart contracts are cost-efficient as well. With the deployment of smart contracts and an IPFS-based system, which distributes storage across ledgers/nodes infrastructure, hidden costs such as litigation, expert fees, and time can be significantly reduced through adopting a ledger-based model for centralised and low-cost transactions with minimal maintenance cost and effective monitoring and research through pilot programs and regulatory sandboxes, as discussed in the next section.
The following section explores solutions, drawing upon comparative jurisprudential experiences and practices across the globe.
Idea to Reality: Roadmap for India
Many countries, like France, the USA, and the Emirates, are experimenting with and leveraging Blockchain technology to create a robust administrative and legal framework. Emirates launched “Dubai Blockchain Strategy” with three main motives: firstly, to use blockchain to increase government efficiency, establish Dubai as an international leader in this space, and encourage the creation of new industries based around blockchain. India could also deploy blockchain in administrative tasks and mechanical day-to-day operations that can enhance efficiency and reduce delays. Additionally, India could encourage start-ups based around blockchain with schemes designed to provide financial and training support to boost innovation.
Singapore and France have also experimented with DLT-based technology through Regulatory Sandboxes and Pilot Regimes. Regulatory Sandboxes provide space for new emerging technologies to experiment with minimal restrictions and regulations. Institutions such as NITI Aayog or the Ministry of Information and Technology can pioneer initiatives like regulatory sandboxes that would allow the government and other stakeholders to research and experiment with Blockchain-based evidentiary systems before national rollout.
On the legislative side, India does not need a separate legislation to recognise “smart contracts”; the IT Act, which laid the foundation stone for the admissibility of electronic evidence, could be amended to legally recognise blockchain-based smart contracts. Secondly, the BSA can operationalise the proposed evidentiary management system by amending Section 65B (4), replacing the present certification mandate.
Lastly, this system could also give rise to privacy concerns. For example, in cases where sensitive data, like health data, is stored on blockchain, it is simultaneously produced to different blocks, which makes it immutable. However, this directly conflicts with “the right to be forgotten” as the data cannot be completely deleted from the system. Jurisdictions like the European Union have clarified that blockchain operators are “data controllers” under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and are required to keep the personal data off-chain and only record the hash on-chain. This implies that the personal data needs to be saved externally, and only the hash (or the reference) can be recorded on the blockchain. For India, the government can release guidelines on the storage of personal data on blockchain through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023(DPDA), on similar lines to GDPR.
Conclusion
This essay endeavoured to justify the core argument that blockchain-based smart contracts are time and cost-efficient than the statutorily mandated Certificates, to verify CoC. Section I analysed the current legal framework and judicial interpretations on digital evidence. The settled position through Arjun Panditrao is that the Certificates are both procedural and substantive requirements, and no digital evidence whose source computer is not presented can be admitted without certificates. To counter this stringent mandate and interpretation, Section II introduced Smart Contracts that automatically execute pre-defined terms once certain conditions are met. Section III discussed how their immutability and transparency can ensure – automated chain of custody, real-time authentication from inception, coherent and consistent inter-court and inter-agency sharing, controlled and conditional disclosure, and cost efficiency. China and Estonia have already deployed smart contracts to secure evidence and public records, respectively. The essay also looked at other jurisdictions like Dubai, France, and the EU in Section IV. Dubai and France are trying to encourage blockchain-based startups by setting up policy goals and regulatory sandboxes, respectively. Lastly, the author strongly advocates for schemes providing financial and training support to blockchain-based startups and amendments in the IT Act and the BSA to recognise smart contracts and counter privacy concerns over sensitive data.