Welcome to LawTutorial.in – Your Partner in Understanding Law
Join Now

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 85: Presumption as to electronic agreements

§ SECTION 85 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER V — DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Presumption as to electronic agreements

Digital deals get a leg-up. The Court shall presume that an electronic agreement bearing the parties’ electronic or digital signatures was concluded by their affixing those signatures — so the fact of the bargain need not be proved afresh.

How to read Section 85

Signed electronically → presumed concluded.

The document

An electronic agreement bearing the parties’ e-signatures.

The presumption

Concluded by the parties affixing those signatures.

The limits

Not genuineness of a disputed signature, the terms, or admissibility.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 85 · verbatim

The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the electronic or digital signature of the parties was so concluded by affixing the electronic or digital signature of the parties.

In short: everyday commerce now runs on e-contracts, and it would stall litigation to prove, for each, that the parties actually clicked to sign. So where an electronic record purports to be an agreement bearing the electronic or digital signatures of the parties, the Court shall presume that it was concluded by their affixing those signatures. The presumption is deliberately narrow: it establishes the fact of conclusion, not the genuineness of a signature that a party actively disputes (proved under § 66 / § 73), not the admissibility of the electronic record (governed by § 63), and not the meaning of the terms. As a ‘shall presume’, it is rebuttable.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 85A — presumption as to electronic agreements.

Glossary

electronic agreement

A contract made and stored as an electronic record.

electronic / digital signature

Electronic authentication affixed by a party to sign.

affixing

Applying the e-signature — the act that concludes the deal.

concluded

Entered into / made — what the section presumes.

disputed signature

One a party denies — proved under § 66 / § 73, not § 85.

shall presume

Mandatory but rebuttable.

The picture

The deal is presumed made — not everything else.

e-agreement + both e-sigsCourt shallpresume it was CONCLUDEDby affixing those e-signaturesNOT: a disputed sig (§ 66/73),admissibility (§ 63),or the meaning of the terms‘shall presume’ — rebuttable; a party who truly never signed can displace it

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

the ruleA signed e-agreement is presumed concluded

In one lineIf an electronic record purports to be an agreement bearing the parties’ electronic / digital signatures, the Court shall presume it was concluded by their affixing those signatures.
1An electronicagreement (e-contract/ signed record)2Bearing the parties’electronic / digitalsignatures3Court SHALLpresume it wasso concludeda digitally-signed contract is presumed to have been concluded by the parties affixing their e-signatures
The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreementSHALL presume: an e-agreementthe Court shall presume that an electronic record that purports to be an agreement…
containing the electronic or digital signature of the partiesbearing the parties’ e-signatures…and bears the electronic / digital signatures of the parties…
was so concluded by affixing the electronic or digital signature of the parties.→ presumed concluded by those e-signatures…was concluded by the parties affixing those e-signatures.
ExampleA contract signed on an e-signing platform, bearing both parties’ digital signatures, is presumed to have been concluded by them affixing those signatures — you need not separately prove the click-to-sign.
✗ Not thisThis presumes the agreement was concluded by affixing the e-signatures. It does not presume the e-signature is a genuine one of a party who denies it — a disputed e-signature is proved under § 66 / § 73 — nor does it settle the terms.

scopeWhat the presumption does — and does not do

In one line§ 85 makes the conclusion of an e-agreement easy to accept — but it is narrow: it does not prove a disputed e-signature, settle the terms, or admit the record (those are §§ 66, 73, 63).
what § 85 PRESUMESthe e-agreement was concludedby affixing the e-signatureswhat it does NOT settlea disputed e-signature → § 66 / § 73admissibility of the record → § 63the meaning of the terms§ 85 presumes the agreement was concluded by affixing the e-signatures; it does not resolve a disputed signature, the terms, or admissibility.
the presumptionconcluded by the partiesthe Court assumes the parties affixed their e-signatures and thereby concluded the agreement.
what it does not donot genuineness, not termsit does not prove a disputed e-signature is genuine, nor does it fix what the terms mean.
the neighbours§ 66 / § 73 / § 63a challenged e-signature is proved under § 66 / § 73; the e-record’s admissibility is § 63.
ExampleBoth sides used a signing service; neither denies signing. The Court presumes the deal was concluded by their e-signatures — the dispute then moves to what the contract means, not whether it was made.
✗ Not thisIf a party squarely denies ever affixing his e-signature, § 85 does not steamroll that — the genuineness of that signature must be established (§ 66 / § 73). The presumption is rebuttable.

Connected provisions

§ 66

Proof as to e-signature

How a disputed e-signature is proved — § 85 does not do this.

§ 73

Verify digital signature

The Court’s tools to test a digital signature.

§ 63

Electronic records

Admissibility of the e-record itself.

§ 86 · next

Secure e-records & signatures

The presumptions run continues — electronic records / signatures.