BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 (BSA Act): 1. The substantial changes introduced in Indian Evidence Act by passing new Act Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is with respect to electronic and digital records; digital evidence, Information Technology and expansion of concept of secondary evidence and its admissibility, reliability and procedure in that regard. 2. Section 81, 85, 86, 90 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are corresponding provision to Section 81A, 85A, 85B, 88A, in the Indian Evidence Act with respect to various presumptions relating to Electronicevidence. 3. Tampering/manipulation: One of the main objectionable draw back or deficit in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam coupled with BNSS is that there is no special particular safeguard against tampering/ manipulation of electronic/ digital evidence by the Investigating Agency during the investigation on or before seizure ofcomputers/ devices. No such provisions are available in the BNSS having regard to the special nature of computer/ digital devices and development of information technology especially in the light of spy software –Pegasus. No guidelines are given with respect to safeguards in the matter of seizure of electronic devices including mobile phones, laptop-computers etc. 4.Privacy:ThereisnoeffectiveandfoolproofdataprivacylawinIndia. There is no effective provision in the BNSS to safeguard and protect the privacy of person during investigation and dealing with electronic and digital evidence, computer, devices etc. 5. As there is no effective safeguard against tampering or manipulation of electronic/ digital evidence, as tampering with materials or manipulation of electronic/ digital evidence as alleged in the case of father Stan Swami, the person’s personal liberty and privacy will be in peril. 6. It fails to address crucial aspect of adducing of evidence in trials in non police report cases including private complaint cases and civil suits. When the certificate is mandatory under section 63 (4) (c) of the BSA there is no corresponding statutory mandate to the concerned officers and experts to issue such certificates on verification and scrutiny. This is applicable to the certificate of the experts as well. Sufficient qualified experts are not available and required infrastructure is not so far developed in India. The complexity of generating a hash value and obtaining the requisite expert certificate create deadlock and delay in court proceedings, hindering speedy dispensation of justice and spiraling of backlog of cases.  If the case itself is charged by the police after the period / statutory period, if any, of storage/safe custody of data or the Police- Investigating Officers failed to or refused to collect secondary electronic evidence obtaining the required certificate under the BSA what would be the position of defacto complainant –victim in a criminal case – trial. If the evidence is not admissible and acceptable against the accused due to non production of the required certificate what will be the remedy available to the victim in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court of India in 2020 (7) SCC 1 N [Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal]. This is crucial with respect to mobile call details. 7. Indian Evidence Act section 3- interpretation clause defines “Proved”, “Disproved”, “Not proved”. This interpretation clause has undergone drastic change in the new Act. The expression “Disproved” is deleted. Expression “Disproved” has got clear meaning and relevance in the law of evidence. Deleting that expression from the statute book will cause prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the concerned parties in a given case. Conclusion: For the reasons highlighted in the preceding paragraphs we oppose these new laws and demand repeal of the same. The required amendments in the existing laws shall be made after thorough debate and for that the general public and all stakeholders shall be given an opportunity of informed debate.