Original Documents: Definitions and Judicial Interpretations

Original documents are the basic constituents of documentary evidence in the Indian legal provisions. An original document, according to the definition provided under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (section 57 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023), is the document itself produced before the court for its examination. The word “original” means that it is not a reproduction or a copy, and it has the actual contents, signature, or execution by the concerned person. These documents hold great significance in civil as well as criminal cases as they are presumed to be authentic unless discredited. The judiciary has approached the interpretation of original documents with considerable caution. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Khemraj (2000) 9 SCC 241, the Supreme Court established that original documents should be prioritized during the examination process, indicating that reliance on copies alone could compromise the integrity of the evidence presented. Additionally, in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595, the Court noted that secondary evidence, such as a copy, cannot be admitted unless particular exceptions are satisfied in accordance with Section 65 of the Evidence Act (section 60 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023). This case emphasized the necessity of originals, which are critical unless it can be demonstrated that they are lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable for reasons that cannot be ascribed to the party seeking to rely on them. Therefore, original documents are accorded primacy, as they maintain their full evidentiary value within the context of legal proceedings.

What sets a scanned copy apart from a hard copy?

A scanned version can be defined as an electronic version of a document in which a physical document is digitized and saved in the form of PDF, JPEG, or TIFF. A physical copy, on the other hand, is a printed or hand-written document. Although the information in both versions

Under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, a physical document can also be treated as a “duplicate original” in case of production contemporaneously, like carbon copies or papers printed simultaneously on official letterheads. Scanned documents, however, are electronic records and are not only regulated by the Evidence Act but also by the Information Technology Act, 2000. The ruling in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 establishes the precedent that electronic or scanned documents could only be admitted when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (section 63 Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023). A physical document, therefore, depending on the circumstances, may have direct admissibility, whereas a scanned document must satisfy procedural requirements to be admissible. Moreover, a scanned document does not possess inherent evidentiary value per se unless accompanied by metadata, provenance data, or a certificate attesting to its authenticity.

The Credibility, Authority, and Verification Process for Scanned and Physical Copies. The genuineness and authoritative weight of any document rest on its origin, mode of preparation, and subsequent verification. Physical documents, particularly those duly signed, sealed, or notarized, are entitled to a greater presumption of originality in Indian law. Physical documents, like registered sale deeds, affidavits, and judicial orders, can be accepted by the courts without further authentication, as long as they are in the right form. While dealing with scanned documents, the procedure of verification is more rigorous. As per
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (section 63 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023), any electronic record tendered as evidence must be accompanied by a certificate issued by the officer in charge of the computer or system on which the record was generated. The certificate is to specify the mode of creation, device used, and to verify the integrity of the document. In the traditional judgment of Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer, The Supreme Court held that without this certificate, electronic or scanned records cannot be held as admissible evidence.

In addition, while physical documents can be exposed to forensic verification methods, such as handwriting examination and ink analysis, computer documents rely on electronic testing such as hash checks, timestamp analysis, and metadata testing. Entities of verification are public notaries, digital signature certifying organizations, and, in specific instances, court- appointed experts . Therefore, the authenticity of documents that are scanned is necessarily dependent, as opposed to physical documents, which, where validly carried out, are generally accepted as authentic on face value.

What is Court Certified Copies?

Court-certified copies are sworn duplicates of the original judicial papers such as judgments, orders, decrees, or pleadings. They are prepared by the court’s records department and are stamped with an official seal and signature that guarantee their accuracy and resemblance with the original papers . As per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act (section 75 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023), any public officer who holds a public document shall, on demand, produce a certified copy. Further, these certified copies are receivable as evidence as per Section 77 (section 76 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023) without having to produce the original document.

The above copies serve critical purposes in the context of legal practice. For instance, in the event a party seeks to file an appeal or institute concurrent proceedings in another jurisdiction, certified copies are often required. In Surinder Pal Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh11 AIR 1986 Punjab &Haryana  64, the court recognized certified copies as valid evidence where the original document is not present. This judicial recognition attests to their utility in ensuring due process while preserving the integrity of the evidence produced. In addition, certified copies of registered documents under the Registration Act of 1908 are presumed to be genuine under Sections 57 and 60. These documents are frequently applied in immovable property cases, succession cases, and matrimonial cases, particularly since the originals may be beyond reach by reason of institutional custody or loss.

Are There Any Existing Legal Provisions on Parcel in India?

Indeed, India possesses a comprehensive legal structure that regulates the transmission of parcels via various statutes. The principal legislation overseeing postal services, including parcels, is encapsulated in the Indian Post Office Act of 1898. Within this Act, Section 3 delineates the term “postal articles” to encompass parcels. Furthermore, it establishes protocols concerning the booking, delivery, and responsibilities of postal authorities in instances of loss, delay, or tampering13. Sections 25 and 26 impose penalties for illegal retention or incorrect delivery. Besides postal operations, road transport parcel delivery is regulated by the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which requires registration of transporters, the issuing of goods consignment notes, and liability in case of loss or damage in transit. The act
imposes contractual and statutory obligations on the logistics service providers.

In the private courier sector, Indian Contract Act, 1872 contracts involve parties by terms and conditions normally printed on consignment receipts. Liability in these cases may be limited or extended based on contractual terms. Consumer redressal can also be sought under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly when delay or loss during delivery inflicts harm to the user. Parcels transmission is hence regulated through a multi-dimensional legal system balancing efficiency with responsibility.

Karnataka Case on Misuse of Parcel During Travel Ban Summary due to COVID-19 in 2020–21, the Karnataka Government invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and passed state-wide orders prohibiting non-essential movement of vehicles.There have been reports, however, from Bengaluru and other districts where people have started booking themselves as “parcels” by e-commerce or courier vehicles in order to bypass travel restrictions.

In State of Karnataka v. Hemanth Kumar & Ors Karnataka HC, 2021, the High Court acknowledged the misbehavior committed. The court was extremely concerned with the exploitation of logistical inadequacies by persons who were a threat to public health. In a strongly worded order, the court remarked that individuals cannot be treated like packages or parcels, and any action to do so is a breach of both public order and personal dignity safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court ordered the transport and police departments of the state government to scan every delivery van at check-posts and prosecute them under the IPC and Disaster Management Act. It was a landmark case where the court Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act: A Complete Code in Itself, State of Karnataka v. Hemanth Kumar & Ors (2021 HC Decision Case Note), in Karnataka High Court Law Report, 2021 stressed ethical governance in times of crisis and urged legislative clarity to avoid such misuse. The judgment is a precedent in regulating logistics and maintaining the sanctity of emergency powers.

Legal Definition of Parcel

Under Indian law, the word “parcel” is more than everyday usage but is legislatively recognized. Section 3 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, describes parcels as postal items meant for carriage and delivery. Parcels can be packets, boxes, or containers bearing non- forbidden items. The legal definition limits parcels to inanimate items that are portable and can be wrapped, sealed, and sent for delivery. Under the overarching category of commercial law, as legally defined by the Carriage by Road Act of 2007, parcels fall under the overarching category of “goods,” as anything material carried for remuneration. Under civil jurisprudence, parcels have been used in the context of the “parcel of land,” in which it refers to an area or tract of land . Hence, though the term “parcel” can have contradictory meanings depending on context, under the fields of transport and postal laws, it is specifically used to mean material, non-human objects
transported via courier or postal services.

Is Human as Parcel Transferable?

Indian jurisprudence prohibits categorically the carriage of human beings as parcels. This act is a violation of the basic rights, especially Article 21, which guarantees freedom and dignity. This carriage of human beings as parcels is immoral and also punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sections like 343 (section 127(3) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) (illegal confinement), Section 370 (section 143 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) (trafficking of persons), and Section 420 (section 318(4) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) (cheating) are applied when human beings are carried in non-passenger carriers17.

In the Karnataka case discussed above, keeping humans as parcels to avoid travel restrictions was deemed to be demeaning treatment. Additionally, in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, goods carriage permits do not include human passengers, and violations are punishable by penalization and imprisonment. The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights Suresh Kumar, Lockdown Loopholes: A Judicial Critique of Parcel Misuse, Journal of Pandemic Law, 2021 v. Union of India18 AIR 1982 SC 1473 held that individuals cannot be treated as objects or working tools as it is not permissible constitutionally. Therefore, no circumstance, including emergency, necessitates classifying or transporting human beings as parcels.

Supreme Court Rules on Parcel Responsibility and Oversight

Despite the absence of a systematized system particularly relating to parcel regulation, the Supreme Court has established judicial precedents in the form of several judgments on the regulation and responsibility of parcel services. In the case of Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Birla Yamaha Ltd. (2000) 4 SCC 91, the Court underlined that the liability of a carrier in the case of parcels is similar to the liability of an insurer; the carrier is under a burden to establish due diligence in the event of loss or damage.

In Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Associated Roadways, the Supreme Court had the following to observe that delivery services owe a responsibility to maintain high standards of care and prudence. Judicial decisions also established the precedent that carriers cannot escape statutory obligations by using convoluted contractual language that cannot be examined under the Consumer Protection Act. In consumer interest cases, e.g., Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India commentary in Consumer Protection Times, 1995, the Court specified that the State and service providers must both function under the control paradigms and mechanisms of redressing grievances23. These norms imply that parcel services are not exempt from judicial review and must operate in conformity with the doctrines of accountability, equity, and transparency.

Legal Framework Governing Parcels in India

Regulation of parcel delivery companies in India involves various legislative frameworks:

The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 Governs postal activities of the state and penalizes postal misconduct like tampering, delay, and unauthorised opening. The Carriage by Road Act, 2000 Applies to commercial and private parcel carriers, has to be registered, and is responsible for loss or damage during transit. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 gives consumers the right to approach either District, State, or National Commissions for remedies against fraudulent or negligent parcel services. Information Technology Act, 2000 Includes e-commerce parcel logistics, electronic invoicing, and electronic records utilized in parcel
delivery. Indian Contract Act, 1872 Enacts the law pertaining to the contracts between parcel senders and carriers and defines the remedy for breach or negligence.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Criminalizes criminal offenses against parcels like theft (Section 378) (section 303 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), criminal breach of trust (Section 405) (section 316 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), and cheating (Section 420) (section 318(4) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023). Collectively, these legislations form a strong framework that provides for the effective delivery of parcels either by the state or the private sector legally and safely.

Conclusion

Briefly, the Indian legal system concerning original documents, scanned copies, certified court records, and parcel services is a fine balance between authenticity, procedural prudence, and legal compliance. Original documents, as defined by law in the Indian Evidence Act, are higher in evidence cases, while scanned copies, though gaining popularity in the digital age,need to be certified under Section 65B (section 63 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023) to be used in courts. Certified copies, certified by courts under Section 76 (section 75 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023), are given evidentiary value and facilitate greater access to justice by overcoming logistical difficulties in the production of documents24. The distinction between physical and scanned documents goes beyond technological considerations and involves substantive legal implications of credibility, verifiability, and admissibility. In the same vein, the regulation of parcel delivery services as mandated under the Indian Post Office Act, the Carriage by Road Act, and supportive laws such as the Consumer Protection Act and the Indian Contract Act encourages responsibility, transparency, and consumer rights protection in logistics and goods transport areas. Judicial rulings, particularly by the Supreme Court and other High Courts, have unequivocally placed human dignity at the center stage by categorically rejecting the identification of humans as “parcels” under any circumstance.

The positive effort made by the Karnataka High Court in challenging COVID-19 lockdown parcel transport exploitation is a robust legal precedent that serves the Digital vs Paper Records: Evidentiary Paradigm Shifts, by L. Goel, Journal of Evidence and Procedure, 2023 25 S. Mukherjee, Evidence in the E-Age: Courts, Computers, and Certificates, Journal of Indian Legal Thought, 2023 tenets of the rule of law and public safety. In short, the intertwining of established norms of evidence with evolving digital methods and commercial logistics calls for continuous legal oversight, regulatory clarity, and supervisory oversight. As India continues to march forward with the privatization and digitization of its information and delivery systems, there is a need for maintenance of compliance with constitutional values, statutory rules, and procedural propriety in order to safeguard the sanctity of justice and governance.

10 Key Points

1. Originals = Primary Evidence: Under Section 62, Indian Evidence Act (Section 57, BSA 2023), originals are the strongest form of proof.

2. Scanned Copies = Secondary Evidence: Scanned or photocopied documents are not originals; they qualify only as secondary evidence.

3. 65B Certificate is Mandatory: For electronic records (like scanned PDFs), admissibility requires compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

4. Case Law Clarity: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) held that scanned copies without a 65B certificate are inadmissible.

5. Certified Copies Carry Weight: Certified court copies are admissible without further proof, unlike scanned documents.

6. Digital Certified Copies Valid: With eCourts reforms, digitally signed certified copies now carry the same evidentiary value as physical ones.

7. Parcel Misuse Issues: Misuse of parcels (e.g., during COVID-19 lockdowns in Karnataka) raised legal and human dignity concerns.

8. Criminal & Regulatory Liability: Parcel misuse can trigger IPC/BNS provisions, the Post Office Act, and consumer protection laws.

9. Human Dignity & Article 21: Courts have held that misuse of services or degrading treatment violates the constitutional right to dignity.

10. Comparative Perspective: India’s stricter Section 65B rules contrast with more flexible approaches in the UK/US, highlighting the balance between authenticity and access.

Sources of References:

1. Vaibhav Chadha & Janani Sivaraman, Critical analysis of the law on admissibility of electronic evidence in India, Jindal Global Law Review, 2024
2. (2000) 9 SCC 241
3. (2003) 6 SCC 595
4. Revisiting the Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in India: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis, NUJS Sentinel & Journal of Social Sciences and Contemporary Legal Issues, 2024
5. Surinder Pal Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh commentary in Punjab & Haryana Legal Forum, 1986
6. (2014) 10 SCC 473
7. Court Certified Copies: Presumption and Practice, by S. Nair, All India Reporter Law Journal, 2005
8. Certified Copies under the Evidence Act, by R. Ahuja, Law Herald (Delhi), 2010
9. Anjali Roy, Carrier Liability under Carriage by Road Act, 2007, Transport Law Journal of India, 2019
10. Rahul Patel, Contractual Aspects of Parcel Logistics: Indian Scenario, Contract Law & Commerce Journal, 2021
11. AIR 1986 P&H 64
12. Review of IPC Provisions Applicable to Parcel Tampering/Theft, by V. Mohan, Criminal Law Review India, 2022
13. Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act: A Complete Code in Itself, Bar & Bench, 2022
14. State of Karnataka v. Hemanth Kumar & Ors (2021 HC Decision Case Note), in Karnataka High Court Law Report, 2021
15. Humans Booked as Parcels — Implications & Judicial Response, by M. Desai, Indian Courts Review, 2022
16. 16 A. N. Kamath, Statutory Definitions of Parcel under Postal & Road Carriage Laws, Postal and Transport Law Journal, 2017
17. Suresh Kumar, Lockdown Loopholes: A Judicial Critique of Parcel Misuse, Journal of Pandemic Law, 2021
18. AIR 1982 SC 1473
19. B. R. Singh, Can Humans be Parcels? A Constitutional Perspective, Constitutional Law Review, 2021
20. (2000) 4 SCC 91
21. Patel Roadways litigation articles in Carrier Liability Journal, 2000
22. Arvind Mills case commentary in Commercial Law Digest, 2004
23. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India commentary in Consumer Protection Times, 1995
24. Digital vs Paper Records: Evidentiary Paradigm Shifts, by L. Goel, Journal of Evidence and Procedure, 2023
25. S. Mukherjee, Evidence in the E-Age: Courts, Computers, and Certificates, Journal of Indian Legal Thought,2023
26. Parcel Accountability under Consumer Law, by D. Ghosh, Consumer Law Insights, 2021
27. Post-COVID Travel Ban and Legal Innovations in Logistics, by A. Kaul, Public Law & Policy Journal, 2022