In a landmark overhaul of India’s criminal justice system, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) have introduced transformative provisions that recognize digital evidence, mandate electronic documentation, and enable virtual court proceedings. These reforms signal a substantive shift toward a digital justice paradigm, but they also raise critical questions about privacy, data integrity, and institutional capacity.

At the heart of these reforms lies a firm legal acknowledgment of electronic records. The new Evidence Act equates digital footprints — from server logs and emails to cloud storage and locational data — with traditional paper documents. The BSA further clarifies that electronic or digital records will carry the same legal force and enforceability as their physical counterparts. This modernization bridges a long-standing gap, where courts often struggled to admit electronic evidence due to doctrinal uncertainty or procedural hurdles.

Perhaps even more consequential is the procedural transformation: the BNSS allows trials, inquiries, summons, and even appellate proceedings to be conducted via electronic or audio-visual means. Witnesses, experts, victims, and the accused can testify remotely, ensuring access to justice even when travel, distance, or mobility pose obstacles. This provision is poised to reduce delays, minimize logistical burdens, and expand participation — especially in rural or underserved regions.

On the investigative side, the reforms introduce mandatory digital documentation for critical law enforcement actions. Police are now required to record searches, seizures, and crime scenes using audio-visual technology — with mechanisms to transmit and preserve this data in real time. The e-Sakshya application, for instance, allows officers to capture video and photographic evidence, along with geotags and timestamps, which are securely stored on government cloud infrastructure. This approach not only bolsters the chain of custody, but also enhances transparency and reduces opportunities for manipulation.

That said, digitization brings inherent risks — particularly around privacy and data security. Sensitive personal information of victims, witnesses, and the accused is now routinely captured and stored. If left unprotected, these digital records pose a threat to individual dignity and could exacerbate stigma or risk of exposure. It is not enough for the law to permit electronic evidence; it must also guarantee robust safeguards. The Supreme Court has emphasized that while digitization offers efficiency, it must not come at the cost of data leaks or unauthorized access.

Further, the shift towards remote testimony and virtual hearings demands a reliable technological ecosystem. Electronic trials depend on stable internet, user-friendly platforms, and trained personnel. Without these, the promise of digital justice risks being undermined by inequality in access. Critics argue that systemic underinvestment in court infrastructure — particularly in rural India — could limit the practical implementation of these reforms. Even if trials are permitted online, lack of connectivity or digital literacy may exclude large swathes of the population.

Another critical aspect is evidentiary integrity. The BSA introduces a presumption in favor of the authenticity of digital records, essentially shifting the burden of proof to challenge their integrity. While this is progressive, it raises concerns: how will courts handle claims of tampering, falsification, or loss? Certification procedures require device custodians and technical experts to verify the provenance and integrity of electronic records. But questions remain about who qualifies as a “notified expert,” and how to guard against conflicts of interest or compromised chain-of-custody.

There is also an emerging demand to think about future-proofing the system. As technology evolves, so do the opportunities for evidence manipulation. Concepts like blockchain are being floated as a means to establish immutable logs of digital evidence — guarding against spoliation and tampering by creating a decentralized, timestamped ledger. Such innovations could further strengthen trust in electronic evidence, while pushing the justice system to rethink traditional evidentiary regimes.

Finally, reforming criminal procedure through digitization is not merely a technical or administrative upgrade — it is deeply normative. These changes reflect a recognition that justice must be accessible, efficient, and fair in a digital age. For this vision to take root, however, it is crucial for the state to invest in infrastructure, capacity building, and regulatory guardrails. Training for police, prosecutors, judicial officers, and defense lawyers must prioritize not just legal literacy, but technical fluency.

In conclusion, India’s new criminal law reforms chart a bold path toward digital justice — embracing electronic evidence, enabling virtual courts, and embedding transparency into investigation. But the success of this transformation will depend on how well the system addresses privacy concerns, safeguards data integrity, and ensures equitable access. The reforms are promising, but the ultimate test will be whether digital justice delivers not just in theory, but in the lived experiences of citizens across the country.