CCTV Footage as Evidence Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: Certificate and Authentication Explained
Introduction
CCTV footage has become one of the most important forms of evidence in modern litigation.
A camera outside a shop may capture a theft.
An apartment security system may record an assault.
A toll plaza camera may establish the movement of a vehicle.
Office CCTV may become relevant in an employment dispute.
A hotel, bank, hospital, warehouse or housing society may possess footage capable of confirming—or disproving—an allegation.
But one common misunderstanding remains:
“If the incident is visible on CCTV, the case is proved.”
That is not necessarily true.
A CCTV recording may be highly persuasive, but before a court can rely upon it, questions arise concerning:
- admissibility;
- authenticity;
- source;
- continuity;
- timestamps;
- copying;
- certification;
- tampering;
- chain of custody; and
- identification of the people or objects shown.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), CCTV footage is treated as an electronic or digital record.
Section 61 gives electronic and digital records the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other documents, subject to the requirements of Section 63. Section 62 expressly provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved according to Section 63.
This means CCTV footage can unquestionably be evidence.
But simply copying a video to a pen drive and filing it in court does not necessarily make it legally proved.
In July 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated this point in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, holding that CCTV footage, photographs extracted from it and electronic storage media remain electronic records governed by Section 63. Where reliance is placed on a copy of the footage, the required Section 63 certificate must accompany it; mere marking of the footage as an exhibit does not cure the defect.
The difference between having CCTV footage and proving CCTV footage in court is therefore critical.
Is CCTV Footage Admissible in Indian Courts?
Yes.
CCTV footage is capable of being admitted in:
- criminal trials;
- civil suits;
- consumer disputes;
- matrimonial proceedings;
- arbitration;
- commercial disputes;
- disciplinary proceedings; and
- other judicial proceedings,
subject to the evidentiary rules applicable to the proceeding.
Under Section 61 BSA, an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it exists in electronic form. Its contents, however, must be proved in accordance with Section 63.
The law therefore recognises CCTV evidence, but it also requires safeguards because digital recordings are capable of:
- alteration;
- editing;
- deletion;
- copying;
- compression;
- date manipulation; and
- fabrication.
The purpose of electronic-evidence rules is to give the court reasonable assurance that the video being shown is genuinely connected to the original recording system.
What Is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Section 63 is the central provision governing admissibility of electronic records produced as computer output.
It covers information that has been:
- printed;
- stored;
- recorded;
- copied to optical media;
- copied to magnetic media;
- copied to semiconductor memory; or
- otherwise stored, recorded or reproduced electronically.
The provision expressly includes information produced by a computer or communication device.
For CCTV purposes, this can include footage stored on or copied from:
- a DVR;
- an NVR;
- a hard drive;
- a server;
- a memory card;
- cloud storage;
- a pen drive;
- a CD/DVD;
- or another electronic storage system.
If the statutory requirements are satisfied, the computer output can be treated as a document and admitted without requiring production of the original electronic recording system itself.
What Is a DVR or NVR?
Most CCTV systems do not ordinarily store video inside the camera itself.
The footage is commonly sent to:
DVR — Digital Video Recorder
Usually associated with conventional CCTV systems using wired analogue cameras.
NVR — Network Video Recorder
Often used with IP cameras connected through a network.
The DVR or NVR may continuously record footage from several cameras and overwrite older footage after a particular retention period.
For evidentiary purposes, identifying the actual recording device can be extremely important.
The court may need to know:
- which camera recorded the event;
- where the footage was stored;
- who controlled the system;
- when the footage was extracted;
- how it was copied;
- and whether the original remained intact.
Is a Section 63 Certificate Required for CCTV Footage?
Where a party relies on a copy or computer output of CCTV footage, the Section 63 certificate is extremely important.
Section 63(4) states that when an electronic statement is sought to be admitted under the section, a certificate must be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance when it is submitted for admission.
The certificate must, among other things:
- identify the electronic record;
- describe the manner in which it was produced;
- provide appropriate particulars of the device involved; and
- address the statutory conditions relating to the computer or communication device.
In practical terms, if CCTV footage is copied from a DVR onto a pen drive and the pen drive is filed in court, the copy ordinarily needs to be supported by the statutory certificate.
Recent 2026 High Court Position
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt directly with this issue in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, decided on 10 July 2026.
The Court observed that:
- CCTV footage is an electronic record;
- photographs extracted from CCTV footage are also derived electronic material;
- storage devices carrying the footage are governed by Section 63;
- mere production in court does not make the material admissible;
- merely marking footage as an exhibit does not amount to legal proof; and
- a copy of CCTV footage requires the statutory certificate contemplated by Section 63.
Because the CCTV material in that case lacked the required certificate, the Court held that it could not be treated as legally proved electronic evidence.
This is an important practical warning for lawyers and litigants.
“Exhibited” does not automatically mean “proved.”
Does the Old Section 65B Case Law Still Matter?
Yes.
Before the BSA came into force, electronic evidence was principally governed by Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 63 BSA substantially carries forward that electronic-evidence framework while introducing a more detailed statutory certificate format.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decisions under Section 65B therefore remain highly relevant where the underlying principle has been retained.
The most important is:
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.
The Supreme Court held that the statutory certificate is mandatory when a party relies upon a secondary electronic copy, subject to the distinctions recognised regarding production of the original device.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court expressly applied this reasoning to Section 63 BSA in 2026.
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
Another foundational authority is Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
The Supreme Court emphasised that electronic records are especially vulnerable to:
- tampering;
- alteration;
- transposition;
- editing; and
- manipulation.
Accordingly, secondary electronic evidence must comply with the special statutory procedure governing electronic records. The Court explained that certification exists to protect the source and authenticity of digital evidence.
That principle remains directly relevant to CCTV recordings.
Original CCTV System vs Copied Footage
A useful distinction exists between:
Original electronic evidence
For example, the original DVR/NVR or original storage medium containing the recording.
Computer output or copied evidence
For example:
- footage exported to a pen drive;
- footage copied to a CD;
- a video file downloaded to a laptop;
- photographs extracted from CCTV;
- or a mobile phone video made by filming the CCTV monitor.
Most CCTV evidence filed in court is a copy, because carrying an entire installed DVR system into court may be impractical.
That is precisely why Section 63 certification becomes important.
Is the Original DVR Always Required in Court?
No.
Section 63 is designed to allow properly authenticated computer outputs to be used without requiring production of the original electronic device in every case.
For example, if a mall’s CCTV system stores footage on an NVR containing recordings from hundreds of cameras, the entire NVR does not necessarily have to be permanently removed and produced in court.
A properly extracted copy supported by a compliant certificate can be used.
However, preserving the original source is still extremely important.
If authenticity is later challenged, the original system may need to be inspected or forensically examined.
What Information Should a Section 63 Certificate Contain?
The BSA contains a prescribed certificate in its Schedule.
The certificate contemplates information such as:
- the person producing the record;
- type of source device;
- whether the source was owned, maintained, managed or operated by that person;
- make and model;
- serial number;
- device identification details;
- description of how the electronic output was produced;
- whether the equipment was functioning properly; and
- hash value of the electronic record.
Significantly, the Schedule expressly lists DVR as one of the recognised digital-record sources.
This makes the relevance of the certificate to CCTV evidence particularly clear.
Who Should Sign the CCTV Certificate?
The correct signatory will depend on who has lawful control over the recording system and how the footage was produced.
Possible persons may include:
- CCTV system administrator;
- authorised security manager;
- property manager;
- IT administrator;
- shop owner;
- bank official;
- hotel manager;
- apartment association official;
- toll-plaza operator;
- or another person responsible for the relevant device or activity.
Section 63(4) refers to a person in charge of the computer or communication device or management of the relevant activities, together with the expert component contemplated by the statutory certificate.
The certificate should not be signed casually by a person who has no knowledge of:
- the system;
- the footage;
- the extraction; or
- the manner in which the electronic output was produced.
What Is the Expert Portion of the Certificate?
One notable feature of the BSA is the structured certificate contained in the Schedule.
The certificate contains a party component and an expert component.
The expert portion seeks technical details about:
- source device;
- make and model;
- serial number;
- identifying information;
- hash value; and
- algorithm used to calculate the hash.
This is more explicit than the earlier statutory framework and reflects the increased importance of technical authentication.
What Is a Hash Value?
A hash value is often described as a digital fingerprint of an electronic file.
A hashing algorithm processes the file and generates a unique sequence of characters.
Common examples include:
- SHA-256;
- SHA-1;
- MD5; and
- other accepted algorithms.
The BSA Schedule expressly provides for recording hash values and contemplates algorithms including SHA-1, SHA-256 and MD5, with the hash report to accompany the certificate.
Why Is a Hash Important for CCTV Footage?
Suppose police copy a CCTV video onto a pen drive.
At the time of extraction, the video produces a particular SHA-256 hash.
Later, before trial, the file is checked again.
If the hash remains identical, that strongly supports the proposition that the file has not changed since the earlier hash was calculated.
If even a small portion of the file is altered, the hash will ordinarily change.
This makes hash values useful in demonstrating digital integrity.
However, a hash does not independently prove that the original camera footage itself was genuine.
It mainly helps establish that a particular electronic file has remained unchanged after the hash was generated.
Authentication Is More Than a Certificate
A Section 63 certificate is crucial, but it is not the whole evidentiary inquiry.
The court may still ask:
- Was the correct camera identified?
- Was the DVR clock accurate?
- Was the footage continuous?
- Was any portion deleted?
- Was the file edited before extraction?
- Who extracted it?
- Who possessed the pen drive?
- Can the people shown be identified?
- Is the quality sufficient?
- Does the footage actually show what the party claims?
Therefore:
Certification addresses admissibility and source integrity; it does not automatically prove the meaning of everything visible in the footage.
Admissibility and Evidentiary Weight Are Different
This distinction is critical.
Suppose a CCTV recording is properly certified under Section 63.
It shows a person carrying a bottle.
Does that prove the bottle contained petrol?
Not necessarily.
Interestingly, this issue arose in the 2026 Rajesh Kumar case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that even if the footage were considered, the recording merely depicted a person carrying a bottle. It did not establish what was inside the bottle or prove the incriminating inference advanced by the petitioner.
This illustrates a basic evidentiary principle:
A video proves only what can reasonably be inferred from what it actually records.
Authentication cannot transform ambiguity into certainty.
Chain of Custody
Chain of custody refers to the documented history of the electronic evidence after it is collected.
For CCTV footage, this can include:
- who first located the recording;
- who accessed the DVR;
- who exported the video;
- when it was exported;
- what storage device was used;
- whether a forensic image was created;
- what hash was generated;
- who possessed the storage media afterwards;
- when police received it;
- whether it was sealed; and
- who later accessed it.
An unexplained gap in the chain can create doubts regarding manipulation.
Example of a Strong Chain of Custody
A robbery occurs at 8:35 p.m.
The next morning:
- the store’s authorised CCTV administrator locates camera 4;
- the relevant 8:00–9:00 p.m. footage is exported;
- the original DVR is preserved;
- the copied video is saved to a fresh storage device;
- SHA-256 hash is generated;
- the administrator signs the Section 63 certificate;
- the footage is handed to police under written acknowledgement;
- police seal and document the device; and
- subsequent forensic copies generate matching hashes.
That chain is considerably stronger than simply receiving an unidentified video through WhatsApp.
Example of a Weak Chain of Custody
A witness says:
“Someone sent me this CCTV clip on WhatsApp.”
The witness:
- does not know who originally downloaded it;
- does not know the camera location;
- does not possess the DVR;
- cannot explain whether the video was edited;
- has no Section 63 certificate;
- and cannot identify the person who controlled the CCTV system.
The visual material may look convincing, but proving it in court could be significantly more difficult.
What If CCTV Is Recorded on a Mobile Phone?
Sometimes the original CCTV file is not exported.
Instead, someone stands in front of the CCTV monitor and records the playback using a smartphone.
That produces another layer of electronic evidence.
The mobile phone video is not the original CCTV file.
Questions arise about:
- who recorded the monitor;
- what part of the screen was captured;
- whether anything was omitted;
- quality;
- time displayed;
- source CCTV system;
- and certification of the mobile recording.
The Supreme Court has previously expressed concern where CCTV footage travelled through several devices before reaching court.
In a 2023 judgment, it refused to rely on CCTV-derived material where the prosecution’s version involved recording footage on a mobile phone, transferring it to a laptop and then creating a CD, while the relevant source devices were not produced or seized and the evidentiary chain contained serious doubts.
The lesson is simple:
Every additional copying step creates another point that may require explanation.
Are CCTV Screenshots or Still Photographs Evidence?
Yes, they can be relevant.
Still images may be extracted from video to highlight:
- a person’s face;
- vehicle number;
- weapon;
- timestamp;
- movement;
- clothing; or
- another important detail.
But an extracted screenshot remains derivative electronic material.
It should be connected to the original footage and properly authenticated.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2026 expressly treated photographs extracted from CCTV footage as electronic material governed by Section 63.
Can CCTV Footage Be Proved Without a Certificate?
Where a copy of CCTV footage is being relied upon under Section 63, absence of the required certificate can be fatal to admissibility.
A June 2026 Delhi trial-court decision concerning a pen drive containing CCTV footage held that the pen drive could not be relied upon in the absence of a Section 63 BSA certificate.
Similarly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s July 2026 decision treated uncertified copied CCTV footage as unproved electronic material.
The safest litigation practice is therefore straightforward:
Do not file copied CCTV footage without addressing Section 63 at the time it is tendered.
Does Merely Marking CCTV as an Exhibit Cure the Problem?
No.
This is another common misunderstanding.
A court may mechanically assign an exhibit number to a pen drive or video.
That does not mean all objections concerning admissibility disappear.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court expressly stated in 2026 that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with legal proof.
The electronic record must still satisfy the statutory requirements.
Can CCTV Be Viewed by the Court Before Final Proof?
A court may sometimes view electronic material for limited procedural purposes depending on the nature of proceedings.
But viewing the footage does not automatically convert it into proved evidence.
The distinction remains between:
- material placed before the court; and
- legally admissible and proved evidence.
That distinction was specifically emphasised in Rajesh Kumar.
Timestamp Problems
CCTV timestamps are useful—but they are not infallible.
The DVR clock may be:
- several minutes fast;
- several hours slow;
- set to the wrong date;
- affected by daylight-saving settings;
- incorrectly configured after a power outage;
- or deliberately changed.
Accordingly, where timing is critical, the timestamp should ideally be corroborated through:
- phone records;
- GPS;
- toll records;
- transaction timestamps;
- witnesses;
- entry registers;
- vehicle tracking systems; or
- another independent source.
Example: Wrong CCTV Time
Suppose a robbery occurred at 9:00 p.m.
CCTV footage displays:
8:42 p.m.
The defence argues that the accused has proof that they were elsewhere at 8:42 p.m.
The prosecution later establishes that the CCTV system clock was 18 minutes slow and had been incorrectly configured for months.
The displayed time is therefore not necessarily conclusive.
This is why evidence concerning the functioning of the recording system can matter.
What If the CCTV Camera Had No Audio?
That does not make the footage inadmissible.
Most surveillance systems primarily record video.
A silent video can still establish:
- presence;
- movement;
- sequence of events;
- arrival or departure;
- physical interaction;
- vehicle details;
- or other visual facts.
However, the court should not infer conversations or spoken intentions that were not actually recorded.
Can CCTV Identify an Accused Person?
Potentially.
Identification may be established through:
- clear facial image;
- witness recognition;
- clothing;
- body features;
- gait;
- vehicle;
- context;
- forensic image enhancement; or
- other surrounding evidence.
But poor-quality CCTV should be treated carefully.
If the face is blurred or only partially visible, the footage may require corroboration.
AI enhancement also raises additional authenticity concerns if the process artificially generates details that were not present in the source image.
CCTV Enhancement and AI
Modern forensic tools can improve:
- brightness;
- contrast;
- frame visibility;
- stabilisation;
- zoom;
- and certain image characteristics.
But “enhancement” must not become reconstruction.
There is an important difference between:
making existing information easier to see
and
using AI to invent missing visual detail.
If software materially modifies or reconstructs a face, licence plate or object, the party relying on the enhanced image should disclose:
- the original footage;
- software used;
- processing steps;
- expert involved; and
- methodology.
The unprocessed original should always be preserved.
CCTV Footage From Shops, Hotels and Housing Societies
Private CCTV footage can be important evidence.
Police may seek recordings from:
- shops;
- apartment associations;
- private homes;
- hotels;
- restaurants;
- offices;
- banks;
- petrol pumps;
- warehouses; and
- other establishments.
Where the owner or administrator voluntarily provides a copy, the extraction and certification should still be documented carefully.
The person responsible for the CCTV system may later be required to explain:
- how the system operates;
- where footage is stored;
- how the relevant clip was extracted;
- and whether it was altered.
Should Businesses Have a CCTV Evidence Policy?
Yes.
Businesses operating CCTV systems should ideally maintain procedures covering:
- retention periods;
- authorised access;
- extraction requests;
- police requests;
- incident preservation;
- log books;
- copying procedure;
- hash generation;
- and responsible officers.
Without such systems, important footage may be overwritten before anyone realises it is needed.
How Long Must CCTV Footage Be Preserved?
There is no single universal retention period applicable to every private CCTV camera in India.
Retention depends on:
- sectoral law;
- organisation policy;
- storage capacity;
- contractual requirements;
- regulatory obligations; and
- purpose.
Many systems automatically overwrite old footage after a short cycle.
Therefore, if CCTV is relevant to an incident, preservation should be requested immediately.
What If CCTV Is Deleted or Overwritten?
If the deletion happened automatically before anyone knew the footage was relevant, the legal effect may differ from deliberate destruction.
But where a party knows relevant footage exists and intentionally fails to preserve it, serious evidentiary consequences may follow.
In Savitri Devi v. State of Rajasthan, decided in February 2026, the Rajasthan High Court dealt with non-production of important toll-plaza CCTV footage despite timely demand and judicial directions. The Court directed the trial court to consider the principle of adverse inference reflected in Section 119 BSA, corresponding to the earlier Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act.
In simple terms:
If a party deliberately withholds important evidence that should reasonably have been produced, the court may draw an inference against that party.
Can Police Demand CCTV Footage?
Police investigating an offence can lawfully seek relevant records through powers available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and other applicable laws.
Businesses and individuals should preserve the footage when a lawful request is received.
Where the footage is handed over, good practice is to document:
- request received;
- date and time;
- footage period supplied;
- cameras involved;
- storage device;
- person extracting it;
- hash;
- certificate; and
- acknowledgement from police.
Should Police Seize the Whole DVR?
Not necessarily in every case.
Sometimes removing a DVR can disrupt an entire security system.
A forensic or properly certified copy may therefore be sufficient.
However, depending on the seriousness of the case and dispute over authenticity, police may consider:
- seizure of the original;
- forensic imaging;
- cloning of the drive;
- or preservation of the original DVR.
The goal should be to secure reliable evidence while maintaining chain of custody.
What If Police Fail to Collect Available CCTV?
Failure to collect obvious CCTV evidence can sometimes weaken an investigation.
Its effect depends upon the circumstances.
The mere existence of a camera does not prove that useful footage existed.
But if investigators knew highly relevant footage was available and allowed it to disappear without explanation, the defence may question the fairness or completeness of the investigation.
The Rajasthan High Court’s 2026 decision concerning unpreserved toll-plaza footage illustrates how non-production of important electronic evidence can become significant.
Can the Defence Ask for CCTV Footage?
Yes, depending on the case and procedural stage.
CCTV may establish an accused person’s innocence just as easily as guilt.
A defendant may seek preservation or production where footage may show:
- they were not present;
- police recovery did not occur as alleged;
- arrest occurred at a different time;
- another person committed the act;
- or witnesses’ accounts are inaccurate.
Requests should be made quickly because footage may be overwritten.
CCTV Footage and Police Stations
Police-station CCTV has particular importance because it may become relevant to allegations involving:
- illegal detention;
- custodial violence;
- interrogation;
- arrest timing;
- visitor access;
- or treatment in custody.
The Supreme Court has previously issued extensive directions concerning CCTV installation in police stations and investigative offices.
Where such footage exists and becomes relevant, preservation can be critical to determining what occurred inside official premises.
Can a Person Ask a Shop to Preserve CCTV?
Yes.
A person involved in an incident should promptly send a written request to preserve relevant footage.
The request should identify:
- date;
- approximate time;
- camera location;
- incident;
- and duration to be preserved.
If litigation or a police investigation is anticipated, formal legal or investigative steps may be required to obtain the footage.
A preservation request does not necessarily mean the business must casually hand over footage containing other people’s personal information to anyone who asks.
Preservation and disclosure are different issues.
CCTV and Privacy
CCTV evidence also involves privacy.
Businesses and residential communities should avoid placing cameras in areas where individuals have a very high reasonable expectation of privacy, such as:
- bathrooms;
- changing rooms;
- private bedrooms; or
- similar spaces.
A camera may serve legitimate security purposes in a public entrance or common area, but surveillance can become intrusive depending upon:
- location;
- angle;
- purpose;
- audio capture;
- retention;
- access; and
- disclosure.
The fact that CCTV can become evidence does not mean surveillance is unrestricted.
Can Secret CCTV Be Used as Evidence?
Potentially, but the method of recording may create separate legal questions.
Admissibility, relevance and legality of surveillance are not always the same issue.
A court may need to consider:
- privacy expectations;
- location;
- who installed the camera;
- whether the recording was lawful;
- authenticity;
- and the nature of proceedings.
Private surveillance inside a highly intimate area would raise much more serious concerns than an ordinary shopfront security camera.
What About CCTV With Audio Recording?
CCTV systems that record audio can create additional privacy concerns because they capture conversations as well as images.
Where audio is relied upon in court, identification and authenticity of voices may need to be established.
The recording may also need to comply with the same electronic-evidence requirements as the video.
Can a Pen Drive Containing CCTV Be Treated as the Original?
Not merely because it contains the file.
If the footage was originally stored on a DVR and later copied to a pen drive, the pen drive ordinarily contains a copy of the original electronic record.
The party must explain:
- source;
- extraction;
- device;
- copying process;
- and certification.
A June 2026 Delhi decision specifically declined to treat a pen drive containing CCTV footage as primary evidence merely on that basis and emphasised the absence of a Section 63 certificate.
Can a WhatsApp-Forwarded CCTV Clip Be Used?
It may be relevant, but evidentiary problems arise.
A WhatsApp-forwarded video may have:
- lost metadata;
- been compressed;
- passed through several devices;
- been edited;
- or been detached from its original source.
The stronger route is to obtain the footage directly from the CCTV system or lawful custodian.
If the WhatsApp version is all that exists, the party may need additional evidence to authenticate its origin.
What If the Other Party Admits the CCTV Footage?
Admission can simplify proof.
Where both parties agree that:
- the footage is genuine;
- it came from the identified camera; and
- it accurately represents the relevant recording,
many authentication disputes may disappear.
But where authenticity is specifically contested, the court is likely to scrutinise the electronic-evidence foundation more carefully.
Can Forensic Experts Detect CCTV Tampering?
Often, forensic experts can examine indicators such as:
- metadata;
- encoding;
- frame sequence;
- compression;
- file structure;
- timestamps;
- hash values;
- cuts;
- discontinuities; and
- inconsistencies.
However, no forensic method guarantees that every sophisticated manipulation will always be detected.
Preserving the original recording system and generating hashes early remain among the strongest safeguards.
What Should Lawyers Ask When Receiving CCTV Evidence?
A useful checklist includes:
- Where is the original recording stored?
- What type of DVR/NVR was used?
- Who controls the system?
- Which camera recorded the incident?
- Is the system clock accurate?
- Who exported the footage?
- When was it exported?
- Was the original preserved?
- Has the footage been edited?
- What storage device contains the copy?
- Was a hash generated?
- Is there a Section 63 certificate?
- Is the certificate properly completed?
- Can the person signing it testify about the system?
- Is forensic examination necessary?
These questions should be asked before—not during the final stages of trial.
Practical Example 1: Shop Theft
A jewellery shop records a theft.
The manager:
- immediately preserves the relevant period;
- exports the original clip;
- records DVR details;
- generates a hash;
- gives a copy to police;
- signs the statutory certificate; and
- retains the original system.
That footage has a strong evidentiary foundation.
Practical Example 2: Apartment Assault
A resident receives a short video on WhatsApp showing an alleged assault in an apartment corridor.
No one knows:
- who downloaded it;
- whether the complete clip exists;
- which camera recorded it;
- whether the timestamp is correct; or
- who controls the DVR.
Before relying on the WhatsApp clip, the party should seek the original recording from the housing society and properly authenticate it.
Practical Example 3: Road Accident
A shop camera records a road accident.
The footage shows a car crossing the frame.
The licence plate is unclear.
AI software is used to “enhance” the registration number.
If the enhancement merely improves contrast, that may be capable of explanation.
If the software generates missing digits, the supposed number should not automatically be treated as the content of the original recording.
The original footage must remain available for comparison.
Practical Example 4: Missing CCTV
An incident occurs at a toll plaza.
The defence immediately requests preservation.
A court later directs production.
The responsible authority nevertheless fails to preserve the footage and gives no satisfactory explanation.
The court may consider whether an adverse inference should arise from non-production, depending on the circumstances. The Rajasthan High Court’s 2026 Savitri Devi decision illustrates this possibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CCTV footage admissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Yes.
CCTV footage is an electronic or digital record and can be admitted subject to the requirements governing proof of electronic evidence.
Which section applies to CCTV evidence?
Sections 61 and 62 recognise and regulate electronic records generally, while Section 63 contains the main admissibility framework for computer outputs.
Is a Section 63 certificate necessary?
Where copied CCTV footage or another computer output is relied upon under Section 63, the certificate requirement is highly important and ordinarily mandatory.
Does the certificate have to accompany the footage?
Section 63(4) expressly states that the certificate shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is submitted for admission.
Does CCTV need a hash value?
The statutory certificate format expressly requires hash details and contemplates algorithms such as SHA-1, SHA-256 and MD5, along with a hash report.
Is a pen drive enough?
No.
A pen drive merely stores the copy. The source, extraction process and Section 63 requirements must still be addressed.
Can screenshots from CCTV be used?
Yes, but they are derivative electronic material and should be authenticated and connected to the original footage.
Can CCTV be admitted without producing the DVR?
Yes, a properly authenticated and certified computer output can potentially be used without production of the original DVR.
Does an exhibit number prove the CCTV?
No.
Merely marking the footage as an exhibit does not dispense with statutory proof requirements.
Can missing CCTV lead to adverse inference?
Potentially.
Where relevant footage existed but was not preserved or produced despite circumstances requiring preservation, the court may consider adverse inference under Section 119 BSA.
Can CCTV alone convict an accused?
Potentially, depending on the quality and circumstances, but the court must examine authenticity, identification, reliability and what the footage actually establishes.
There is no rule that every CCTV clip automatically proves guilt.
A Practical CCTV Evidence Checklist
Before filing or relying upon CCTV footage, verify:
- original source identified;
- relevant camera identified;
- date and time checked;
- full relevant period preserved;
- original DVR/NVR protected;
- extraction process documented;
- copied file unedited;
- storage device identified;
- hash value generated;
- Section 63 certificate prepared;
- certificate signed by appropriate persons;
- chain of custody documented;
- persons visible in the footage capable of identification;
- screenshots linked to source video;
- forensic examination considered where disputed;
- and all preservation requests retained in writing.
This checklist can prevent a technically valuable video from becoming legally unusable.
Proceedings Started Before the BSA Came Into Force
The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024.
Section 170 contains a saving provision under which proceedings already pending immediately before commencement continue to be dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as if the BSA had not come into force.
Accordingly, lawyers should first determine whether the relevant proceeding is governed by:
- the old Section 65B framework; or
- the new Section 63 BSA framework.
The underlying principles are similar, but the statutory form and procedural requirements should not be casually mixed.
Why Authentication Matters More in the AI Era
CCTV footage has historically been treated as powerful because people tend to believe:
“The camera does not lie.”
That assumption is becoming less safe.
Modern software can:
- replace faces;
- add or remove people;
- alter licence plates;
- change timestamps;
- generate missing frames;
- create synthetic video; and
- reproduce realistic events that never occurred.
For courts, therefore, the question will increasingly become not merely:
“What does the video show?”
but:
“Where did this video come from, and can we trust that it has remained authentic?”
Section 63’s emphasis on source devices, certificates, experts and hash values is particularly relevant to this new evidentiary environment.
Conclusion
CCTV footage can be some of the strongest evidence available in an Indian courtroom.
It can objectively record events that witnesses forget, misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent.
But the existence of a video is not enough.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, CCTV is electronic evidence and must be proved through the legal framework governing electronic records.
Sections 61 and 62 recognise electronic records, while Section 63 provides the central mechanism governing computer outputs.
Where a copy of CCTV footage is relied upon—such as footage stored on a pen drive, CD or other electronic medium—the Section 63 certificate is critically important.
The BSA’s statutory certificate now expressly contemplates:
- DVRs;
- storage media;
- device identification;
- lawful control;
- hash values; and
- expert certification.
Recent 2026 case law reinforces the point.
In Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that CCTV footage does not become admissible merely because it is produced or marked as an exhibit. In the absence of compliance with Section 63, copied CCTV material remained unproved electronic evidence.
At the same time, technical compliance does not decide everything.
A properly certified video may still be:
- unclear;
- incomplete;
- incorrectly timed;
- incapable of identifying a person;
- or insufficient to establish the inference being argued.
Admissibility and evidentiary weight remain different questions.
The practical lesson is therefore straightforward:
Preserve the original system, extract the footage carefully, document the chain of custody, generate and preserve hash values, comply with Section 63, and never assume that merely copying CCTV to a pen drive makes it court-ready evidence.
For police, lawyers, businesses and litigants, digital-evidence discipline should begin at the moment CCTV footage is discovered—not on the day it is finally shown to the judge.
In an era in which digital video can increasingly be manipulated by sophisticated software and artificial intelligence, the most important question is no longer simply whether the camera recorded something.
It is whether the legal system can reliably establish that the footage placed before the court is the same authentic recording that the camera originally captured.
This article reflects the legal position and publicly available judicial developments up to September 2026. Electronic-evidence questions are fact-sensitive, and different procedural rules may apply to proceedings that commenced before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into force. This article is intended for general legal information and academic discussion and does not constitute legal advice.
