New Delhi: The Lok Sabha Wednesday passed the Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill 2026, which seeks to provide for a law on evidence with respect to bankers’ books and align it with contemporary digital banking practices.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman introduced the Bill on 3 August, during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in a bid to modify the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—a 135-year-old colonial-era legislation enacted when bank records existed almost entirely on paper ledgers.
The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, was enacted to facilitate the use of certified copies of bank records as evidence in legal proceedings, without requiring production of original records.
It was enacted at a time when banking records were predominantly maintained in physical form. However, with advances in technology and the growth of digital banking, bank records are increasingly created, stored, and maintained using modern systems.
Underlining that it has become necessary to modernise and “strengthen the existing legal framework to meet the requirements of the present banking system”, the Bill’s Statement of Object and Reasons says.
The Bill’s main features include expanding the scope of the definition of “bankers’ books” to include all records maintained by banks, whether in physical, electronic, digital, virtual, cloud-based or any other form.
This would provide a comprehensive, technology-neutral and future-ready legal framework, the Bill says.
On the other hand, the earlier law, under Section 2(3), defined “banker’s books” to include ledgers, day-books, cash-books, account-books and all other books used in the ordinary business of a bank.
Calling the proposed legislation a recognition that banking has fundamentally changed, Urja Pandey, counsel for the Union of India in the Supreme Court, said the Bill “marks a defining moment in India’s legal and financial evolution”.
“In an era where banking is increasingly digital, the law can no longer remain anchored to the evidentiary standards of a paper-based economy. This reform not only modernises the legal recognition of electronic banking records but also reinforces the credibility and efficiency of the justice delivery system in commercial and financial disputes,” she said.
According to Pandey, the government has acknowledged that “digital evidence is no longer an exception, it is the norm”.
However, she added that the success of the proposed legislation would depend on “uncompromising standards of data integrity, cybersecurity, and procedural fairness”, saying these safeguards would strengthen investor confidence, improve judicial efficiency and support India’s digital economy.
What changes now
Although most key features of the 1891 law remain the same, the Bill introduced some changes to make room for standardised certificate formats and authentication by manual or digital or electronic signatures.
The Bill also seeks to recognise the admissibility of electronic bank records and allows the production of these records, in either physical or electronic form, which was not possible earlier.
Advocate Samarth Luthra, an independent practitioner enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council and a Registered Foreign Lawyer in England & Wales, said the Bill was “not merely a digital update; it is a meaningful reform for litigation”.
“Banking disputes are frequently prolonged by technical objections concerning the production, certification and proof of records. By aligning the evidentiary framework with the realities of digital banking, the Bill can significantly reduce such procedural friction,” he said.
Luthra, however, said its success would ultimately depend on the integrity of electronic records.
“As electronic banking records become central to adjudication, disputes will increasingly turn on the integrity of the data, the reliability of audit trails and the possibility of manipulation. The success of the reform will ultimately depend on whether greater procedural efficiency is matched by equally strong safeguards for authenticity, cybersecurity and evidentiary reliability,” Luthra told ThePrint.
The Bill also seeks to empower the Centre to extend the applicability of the proposed law to any entity or class of entities operating in the financial sector subject to certain conditions, by notification, if necessary.
Finally, it builds on the 1891 law by defining the expression “special cause”, which was mentioned in the previous Act’s Section 5, but lacked a proper definition.
“No officer of a bank shall in any legal proceeding to which the bank is not a party be compelled to produce any banker’s book, the contents of which can be proved under this Act, or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded, unless by order of the Court or a Judge made for special cause,” the provision in the erstwhile law had said.
However, the 2026 amendment includes a definition of “special cause” under Section 8 to include situations where the accuracy or genuineness of the entry or information in the bankers’ book is doubtful, or where any event suggests that the regularity or ordinary nature of record-keeping in the bank is interrupted. It also includes situations where the bank does not comply with Section 9.
Welcoming this aspect of the Bill, Advocate-on-Record Sriram Parakkat said lawyers dealing with banking and white-collar crime matters had long felt that both the Evidence Act and the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 had become “anachronistic”.
“The necessity of authenticating every document with the testimony of a banking official has been done away with. Under the new regime, most usual and normal practices of online storage are acceptable to the extent that the documents speak for themselves, and it requires special reasons to be recorded to call upon an officer to Court,” he said.
“The law now accepting online records as evidence by itself if it’s in an authentic form is also a great relief. Better late than never,” Parakkat added.
In a nutshell, a special cause refers to exceptional situations where the court may, by order in writing, compel an officer of the bank to produce any bankers’ books or to appear as witness to prove matters, transactions or accounts, in any legal proceeding where the bank is not a party.
Section 9 allows the court to, on application by any party to a legal proceeding, inspect and take copies of any entries in a banker’s book. However, this is only allowed for legal proceedings, and not otherwise.
Other features & the 1891 Act
Presently, the proposed law applies to banks, companies and corporations carrying on the business of banking, other entities engaged in the banking business and even post office savings banks or money order offices.
Besides this, the Bill also lays down certain requirements for ascertaining the admissibility of electronic or digital records of a banker’s book as valid and legally enforceable as evidence.
A banker’s book can only be seen as valid evidence if the copy of such entry or information correctly represents or is appropriately derived from such records, and there is no “unauthorised change of data” that is observed or detected.
The third and final condition for establishing the validity of a bankers’ book is that there should not be tampering with the system, as this could affect the overall accuracy.
Advocate Javed Sheikh, however, questioned the extent of the changes introduced by the Bill. “It’s an old wine in a new bottle, nothing pioneering to be found. That which could have been tweaked by minor amendments is being substituted by a major Bill,” he said.
According to Sheikh, the proposed legislation, like the earlier enactment, merely governs how bankers’ books are produced and admitted as evidence during trial.
He also flagged the provision granting protection to bank officials acting in good faith, saying it was “completely uncalled for at least in this Bill” and reflected a growing trend of indemnifying officials from accountability.
He further raised concerns over the use of the phrase “legally enforceable” in Section 6.
“It’s one thing to admit a document in proof and another to say it will make the document legally enforceable. That is overshooting the target. The job is for the trial court and not for the legislature to prejudge an issue merely on production of books,” he said.
Summing up his criticism, Sheikh said that while the 1891 Act, as amended by the Information Technology Act, already addressed the production of bank records concisely, “this Bill may overshoot and overreach and still linger and delay, if not derail, the trial”.
Finally, the proposed law makes it clear that the previous operation of the 1891 Act, which is being repealed in the wake of the present Bill, will not affect anything duly done or suffered under the previous legislation on the subject.
Any right, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment so repealed; or any investigation, inquiry, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, will also not be affected by this either.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)