Wednesday, Aug 05, 2026 21:00 [IST]
Last Update: Tuesday, Aug 04, 2026 15:30 [IST]
Not long ago, we could trust our eyes and ears. A photo, a video, or an audio recording was usually enough to settle a dispute or prove a point. We believed that if something was captured on camera, it actually happened. Today, that trust is fading fast. Artificial Intelligence has made it possible for anyone to create realistic videos, clone voices, and generate fake images in seconds. People can now appear to say things they never said or be in places they never visited. This rise of deepfakes raises a tough question: How do we tell the difference between the truth and a clever digital lie? For our legal system, this is a massive problem. Most modern cases depend on digital evidence like WhatsApp chats, CCTV footage, and location data. Recognizing this, Parliament introduced the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to replace the old Indian Evidence Act from 1872. This new law treats electronic records as a primary part of legal cases, which is a necessary step for the 21st century. However, technology is still moving much faster than the law.
The real challenge for courts today isn't just about accepting digital files; it's about figuring out if they are authentic. AI has completely changed the game. In the past, faking a photo took skill and time. Now, software can do it instantly. Deepfakes are so convincing that judges, lawyers, and even experts can no longer spot them just by looking. This creates a dangerous double-edged sword. On one hand, a fake video could be used to frame an innocent person. On the other hand, someone who is actually guilty could claim that a real video is just a deepfake to get away with a crime. This is what experts call the "liar's dividend"—where people use the existence of AI to cast doubt on the truth. When everything can be faked, even the truth starts to look suspicious.
This situation could lead to the wrong people being convicted or criminals walking free. That is why we need to change how we handle evidence. We can't just look at a file; we have to verify it scientifically. Tools like metadata analysis and digital tracking are becoming just as important as witness testimony. India is moving in the right direction, but we need to do more. We need better forensic labs, specialized training for the police, and a deeper understanding of technology for judges and lawyers. AI isn't a problem for the future—it is affecting our courts right now.
Beyond the courtroom, this is about public trust. Our society and our laws rely on a shared set of facts. When technology blurs the line between what is real and what is manufactured, that foundation starts to shake. The law has always adapted to new inventions, from fingerprints to DNA. AI is simply the next big test. The goal of evidence law remains the same: to find the truth. But in a world where seeing is no longer believing, we must find new ways to prove what is real.
The consequences for the justice
system are obvious. Wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals become equally
possible. This is why the conversation around evidence law must evolve. For
many years, legal debates focused on admissibility whether electronic records
satisfied procedural requirements. Those debates remain important, but they are
no longer sufficient. The central concern now is authenticity. Courts will increasingly
need the assistance of forensic science. Hash values, metadata analysis,
forensic imaging, and digital chain-of-custody procedures may sound technical,
but they are becoming essential tools in the search for truth. In the digital
age, evidence cannot be accepted merely because it exists. It must be
scientifically verified. India has made significant progress in recognizing the
importance of electronic evidence, but substantial work remains to be done.
Digital forensic laboratories require greater investment. Investigating
agencies need specialized training. Judges and lawyers must become familiar
with emerging technologies. Artificial intelligence is not a future concern; it
is already influencing the evidentiary landscape.
(Views are personal. Email: rimalrudra14@gmail.com)
