Sajjad Husain LawSajjad Husain Law Associates

When an Indian court is asked to apply the law of another country, it does not consult its own knowledge of that law; it treats foreign law as a fact to be proved. Section 32 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) supplies one specific route of proof: statements of that foreign law contained in a book purporting to be printed or published — including in electronic or digital form — under the authority of that country's government, and reports of rulings of its courts in a book that purports to be a report of such rulings, are relevant.

The change that names the digital form

Section 32 corresponds to Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records a specific change: the phrase "including in electronic or digital form" has been added twice — once in the heading and once in the operative text — to make clear that officially published electronic and digital compilations of foreign law and law reports qualify equally with printed ones.

The addition is small in words but consequential in scope. In 1872, "law books" meant printed volumes; even a decade ago, courts were still routinely asked to receive imported Statutes at Large and printed law reports. Today, foreign statutes and case reports are far more likely to reach Indian courts through official government websites, e-Gazettes, and electronic law-report subscription services. Section 32 now explicitly recognises those digital publications as within its reach — provided they carry the same official-authority hallmark.

The two limbs

Both limbs require the publication to carry a formal marker of authenticity: official-authority publication for statutes, and a book purporting to be a "report of such rulings" for case law. The section does not admit any commentator's or academic's paraphrase of foreign law; it admits official publications and formal reports.

Why foreign law is a fact — and why this route exists

Under Indian evidence law, foreign law is treated as a matter of fact to be proved rather than a matter of law of which the Indian court takes judicial notice under Section 52. Judicial notice under Section 52(a) is confined to laws in force in the territory of India (including laws having extra-territorial operation). Everything beyond that must be proved — through expert opinion under Section 39, or through the specific documentary route in Section 32.

Section 32 is the documentary complement to expert opinion. It lets a court receive foreign statutes and foreign case reports directly from their official publications, without necessarily having to call an expert witness on foreign law every time. In practice, litigants often combine both — an expert witness may be called to explain the significance and application of foreign statutes and rulings whose text is admitted under Section 32.

Why the digital addition matters in practice

Two categories of electronic publication benefit most from Section 32's updated wording. First, official electronic gazettes and legislative databases — countries increasingly publish their statutes in electronic-only form on government websites, sometimes even discontinuing print editions. Under the earlier wording, a party wanting to tender such a statute might have had to argue for its admissibility by analogy; the new wording removes any doubt. Second, electronic law reports — such as official case-report series published in electronic form by superior courts of foreign jurisdictions — can now be tendered directly under Section 32(b) alongside their printed counterparts.

The section retains its requirement of formal authority. A random webpage discussing foreign law does not become admissible merely because Section 32 mentions electronic form. What is admissible is a book "purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the government" of the foreign country (limb 1), or a book "purporting to be a report of such rulings" (limb 2), each now recognised in electronic or digital form.

Working with the wider relevancy scheme

Section 32 sits alongside Section 31, which admits statements of fact of a public nature in Central Acts, State Acts, and Government notifications, and Section 30, which admits statements in maps, charts, and plans. Together, Sections 30 to 32 form a small cluster of documentary-relevancy provisions covering different kinds of official or authoritative publications. Section 32's specific role is foreign — statutes of other countries and reports of other countries' courts — which is a natural extension of the pattern once foreign law is treated as fact.

Key Takeaways

1. Two limbs: official publications of foreign statutes, and reports of foreign court rulings, are relevant.
2. Digital publications now expressly covered: "including in electronic or digital form" added in the heading and text.
3. Formal authority required: government-authority publication for statutes; a book purporting to report the rulings for case law.
4. Companion to expert opinion: Section 32 admits the text; Section 39 admits expert testimony on meaning and application.
5. Foreign law is fact: Section 52's judicial-notice route is confined to Indian law; foreign law must be proved.

Conclusion

Section 32 keeps the well-established route for proving foreign law relevant in an age when official statutes and case reports increasingly arrive by URL rather than by hardcover volume. The BSA's insertion of "including in electronic or digital form" — twice in the section — closes a gap the pre-existing wording had opened as publications moved online. What has not changed is the underlying requirement of formal authority: a foreign statute or ruling reaches an Indian court through this section because it comes carrying the mark of the foreign government's own publication process, not because it is convenient to reproduce it from any digital source.