Section 78 BSA: Presumption as to Genuineness of Certified Copies

Learn the conditions under which courts presume certified copies and specified official documents to be genuine under Section 78 BSA.

Introduction

Certified copies are frequently used in Indian courts to establish the contents of official records, government documents and other records that the law recognises as admissible evidence. However, a document does not become legally authentic merely because it bears a stamp or appears to have been issued by a public authority.

Section 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 establishes a statutory presumption regarding the genuineness of specified certificates, certified copies and other documents that the law declares admissible as evidence of particular facts. It also provides a presumption concerning the official character of the officer whose signature or certification appears on the document.

The provision corresponds to Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Its essential principle has been retained under the new evidence law. Understanding this section requires distinguishing the genuineness of a document from the truth of its contents and from the legal effect of the facts it records.

Bare Act: Section 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

78. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.—

(1) The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government:

Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.

(2) The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.

Meaning of Section 78 BSA

Section 78 requires the court to presume the genuineness of a qualifying document when the statutory conditions are satisfied. The presumption reduces the need to independently establish the authenticity of every qualifying certificate or certified copy.

The provision has two parts.

Subsection (1): Presumption of genuineness

The court must presume that a document is genuine if it purports to be a certificate, certified copy or other document that the law declares admissible as evidence of a particular fact, and it purports to have been duly certified by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government. The document must also substantially comply with the prescribed form and manner of execution.

Subsection (2): Presumption of the officer’s official character

The court must also presume that the officer whose signature or certification appears on the document held the official position or character claimed in it when the document was signed or certified.

For example, suppose a party produces a certified extract from an official register issued by a competent government officer under a law that permits the extract to be admitted as evidence of a particular fact. If the document satisfies Section 78, the court must presume its genuineness unless the presumption is displaced in accordance with law.

This presumption does not mean that every statement in the document is conclusively true or that every legal consequence claimed by the party automatically follows.

Essential Conditions for Applying Section 78 BSA

1. The document must be covered by the provision

The document must purport to be a certificate, certified copy or other document that the law declares admissible as evidence of a particular fact.

This is an important limitation. Section 78 does not grant an automatic presumption to every document that appears official or bears a government stamp.

2. The document must purport to be duly certified

The document must purport to have been duly certified by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government.

The certification must be considered in light of the law governing the particular document. A certificate or copy that does not meet the relevant legal requirements cannot claim the presumption merely because it looks authentic.

3. The document must substantially comply with the prescribed form

The proviso to subsection (1) requires the document to be substantially in the form directed by law.

Minor differences do not necessarily defeat the presumption if the statutory requirement of substantial compliance is met. However, compliance must be assessed against the particular law governing the document; the proviso does not excuse every defect in certification.

4. The prescribed manner of execution must be followed

The document must purport to have been executed in the manner directed by law.

Depending on the type of document, the applicable law may prescribe the officer authorised to issue it, the form of certification, the signature or authentication required, and other formalities.

If the conditions for applying the presumption are not satisfied, the party may need to prove the document through another legally recognised method.

Also Read: Section 88 BSA: Presumption as to Certified Copies of Foreign Judicial Records

5. The officer’s official character is presumed

Under subsection (2), the court must presume that the officer whose signature or certification appears on the document held the official character claimed in it when the document was signed.

For example, where a qualifying certificate purports to have been signed by an officer acting as the authorised registrar, the court may presume that the officer held the claimed official character at the relevant time.

This presumption concerns the officer’s official character. It does not independently establish that every statement in the document is correct or that every act recorded in it was legally valid.

Examples of Section 78 BSA

Situation	Application of Section 78
A certified copy of an official record is issued in the form prescribed by law	The court may presume its genuineness if all statutory conditions are satisfied.
A certificate is issued by a government officer under a law that declares it admissible as evidence of a particular fact	The presumption may apply if the required certification formalities are met.
A certified extract from a public register is produced in court	The presumption may apply if the extract qualifies under the relevant law and substantially complies with the prescribed requirements.
An ordinary photocopy bears a handwritten note stating “true copy”	It does not automatically qualify for the presumption under Section 78.
A qualifying document purports to be signed by a government officer	The court must presume that the officer held the official character claimed in the document when signing it.

The examples illustrate the general principle. The presumption depends on the document’s legal status and compliance with the applicable requirements.

Important Case Laws on Section 78 BSA

The following decisions interpret Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the predecessor provision. They remain relevant to understanding Section 78 BSA, but they were not decided directly under the new provision.

1. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi

Citation: 2023 INSC 835

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decision date: 20 September 2023

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned competing claims over immovable property and the use of a certified copy of a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court considered the evidentiary treatment of certified copies and the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Registration Act, 1908.

Legal principle: The Supreme Court examined the relationship between the production of certified copies as secondary evidence and the presumption of genuineness under the predecessor Evidence Act. The Court considered Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908, which makes qualifying certified copies of entries in registration books admissible for proving the contents of the original documents.

The judgment highlights the distinction between proving the contents of an official registration record and establishing the due execution of the underlying private instrument. Those are separate evidentiary questions.

Relevance to Section 78 BSA: The case helps explain why a party must identify the legal basis on which a certified copy is admissible. The presumption of genuineness is not a substitute for satisfying the statutory requirements governing the document or for proving a separate fact that the presumption does not establish.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhikhari Yadav and Others

Court: Delhi High Court

Decision date: 3 January 2012

Proceedings: MAC APP Nos. 727/2011 and 728/2011

Facts and issue: The dispute involved reliance on a certificate alleged to establish that a driving licence was not genuine. The insurer argued that the presumption under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied to the certificate.

Legal principle: The Delhi High Court explained that the presumption under Section 79 was conditional. The document had to be of a kind that the law declared admissible as evidence of a particular fact and had to substantially comply with the form and manner of execution prescribed by law.

The Court held that those conditions were not satisfied in the case before it. The presumption therefore could not be invoked merely because the document was presented as an official certificate.

Relevance to Section 78 BSA: This judgment illustrates the importance of the proviso to subsection (1). A party relying on Section 78 must establish that the document falls within the statutory category and meets the relevant certification requirements.

3. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd.

Citation: (2023) 7 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench

Decision date: 25 April 2023

Legal issue: In examining the evidentiary framework under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court considered the scope of the presumption attached to certified copies under Section 79.

Legal principle: The judgment explained that the presumption of genuineness under Section 79 was associated with copies falling within the relevant statutory category of certified copies. It distinguished those copies from other forms of secondary evidence that do not automatically receive the same presumption.

The judgment arose in the context of a dispute concerning an arbitration agreement and the effect of insufficiently stamped instruments. Its discussion of certified copies should therefore be used for the evidentiary principle, not as a general ruling on every category of certified public document.

Also Read: Section 91 BSA: Presumption as to Due Execution of Documents Not Produced

Relevance to Section 78 BSA: The decision is useful for understanding that not every form of secondary evidence automatically receives the statutory presumption of genuineness. The document must satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

What Does “Shall Presume to Be Genuine” Mean?

The expression “shall presume” creates a mandatory presumption when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Under the general definition of “shall presume” in the law of evidence, the court treats the presumed fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. The party relying on a qualifying document therefore benefits from the presumption without having to establish its genuineness from the beginning through independent evidence in every case.

However, the presumption is rebuttable. The opposing party may challenge the document through legally admissible evidence. The court must then assess the challenge and determine whether the presumption continues to apply.

For example, if a party produces a qualifying certified copy of a government record, the court may presume the copy to be genuine. If the opposing party produces evidence of material alteration or establishes that the certification requirements were not met, the court must consider that evidence under the applicable law.

Is the Presumption Under Section 78 BSA Conclusive?

No. Section 78 does not declare the presumption to be conclusive.

A presumption of genuineness is different from conclusive proof of the truth of every statement in a document. The presumption concerns the authenticity of a qualifying document and the official character of the certifying officer.

Three questions should be kept separate:

1. Genuineness: Is the document what it purports to be?
2. Truth of contents: Are the factual statements recorded in the document true?
3. Legal effect: Does the document establish the legal right, liability or consequence asserted by the party?

Section 78 primarily addresses the first question and the specified official character of the certifying officer. The second and third questions must be answered under the relevant substantive and evidentiary rules.

Difference Between Sections 75, 76 and 78 BSA

These provisions are closely related but serve different purposes.

Basis	Section 75 BSA	Section 76 BSA	Section 78 BSA
Subject	Certified copies of public documents	Proof of documents by production of certified copies	Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies
Main function	Governs the supply and certification of copies	Permits certified copies to prove the contents of public documents	Establishes a presumption for qualifying documents
Main question	How is a certified copy obtained and authenticated?	How can the contents of a public document be proved?	When must the court presume a qualifying document to be genuine?
Corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Section 76	Section 77	Section 79

In simple terms, Section 75 concerns obtaining the certified copy, Section 76 concerns proving contents through that copy, and Section 78 concerns the presumption of genuineness.

Difference Between Section 78 and Section 79 BSA

Section 78 concerns the genuineness of certified copies and specified documents. Section 79 deals with a different category of documents: records or memoranda of evidence and certain statements or confessions.

Basis	Section 78 BSA	Section 79 BSA
Subject	Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies	Presumption as to documents produced as records of evidence, etc.
Main focus	Qualifying certificates, certified copies and other legally admissible documents	Records of evidence, statements or confessions taken in accordance with law
Presumption	Genuineness of qualifying documents and the claimed official character of the certifying officer	Genuineness of the record and the specified circumstances concerning the taking of evidence, statements or confessions
Corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Section 79	Section 80

This distinction is important for law examinations. Section 78 is concerned with certified copies and related documents, while Section 79 addresses records of evidence and certain statements or confessions.

Difference Between Section 78 BSA and Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 78 BSA corresponds to Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Both provisions require courts to presume the genuineness of qualifying certificates, certified copies and other documents that the law declares admissible as evidence of particular facts. Both also provide for a presumption that the certifying officer held the official character claimed in the document when signing or certifying it.

The BSA provision refers to officers of the Central Government or a State Government. The essential principle of the predecessor provision has been retained.

Judgments interpreting Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act remain relevant when understanding Section 78 BSA, subject to differences in statutory wording and the facts of each case.

Important Points for Law Students and Judiciary Aspirants

• Section 78 BSA deals with the presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.
• It corresponds to Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Subsection (1) covers qualifying certificates, certified copies and other documents declared admissible by law as evidence of a particular fact.
• The document must purport to be duly certified by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government.
• The document must substantially comply with the prescribed form and manner of execution.
• Subsection (2) concerns the presumption that the certifying officer held the official character claimed in the document.
• The presumption is rebuttable and does not make every statement in the document conclusively true.
• Section 75 concerns the issuance of certified copies, Section 76 concerns proof through certified copies, and Section 78 concerns the presumption of genuineness.
• Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi (2023 INSC 835) is relevant to the evidentiary use of certified copies of registered documents.
• Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhikhari Yadav (Delhi High Court, 3 January 2012) explains the conditions for applying the presumption under the predecessor law.
• N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) discusses the scope of the presumption attached to qualifying certified copies under the predecessor Evidence Act.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 78 provides that courts shall presume the genuineness of qualifying certificates, certified copies and other documents that the law declares admissible as evidence of a particular fact, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 78 BSA?

Section 78 BSA corresponds to Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. What are the conditions for applying Section 78 BSA?

The document must fall within the category covered by the provision, purport to be duly certified by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government, and substantially comply with the form and manner of execution prescribed by law.

4. Does Section 78 apply to every photocopy of a government document?

No. An ordinary photocopy does not automatically receive the presumption. The legal requirements governing the document’s admissibility and certification must be satisfied.

5. What is the effect of subsection (2) of Section 78 BSA?

Subsection (2) requires the court to presume that the officer whose signature or certification appears on the qualifying document held the official character claimed in it when signing the document.

6. Is the presumption under Section 78 BSA conclusive?

No. It is a rebuttable presumption. It may be displaced in accordance with law, and its application depends on satisfaction of the statutory conditions.

7. Does a certified copy prove the truth of every statement it contains?

No. The presumption concerns the genuineness of the qualifying document and the specified official character of the certifying officer. The truth and legal effect of the contents must be assessed under the applicable law.

8. Which case laws are important for Section 78 BSA?

Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi (2023 INSC 835), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhikhari Yadav (Delhi High Court, 3 January 2012), and N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) are relevant to understanding the evidentiary treatment of certified copies under the predecessor Evidence Act.

Conclusion

Section 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes a statutory presumption concerning the genuineness of qualifying certificates, certified copies and other documents that the law declares admissible as evidence of particular facts. It also requires the court to presume that the certifying officer held the official character claimed in the document when signing it. The presumption applies only when the statutory conditions, including substantial compliance with the prescribed form and manner of execution, are satisfied. For a complete understanding, Section 78 should be read with Sections 75 and 76 BSA and distinguished from Section 79, which concerns records of evidence and certain statements or confessions.

dfsad