The Evidentiary Regime of Certified Copies of Public Documents in Indian Law: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Introduction

The Indian legal system places significant emphasis on documentary evidence for the ascertainment of truth in judicial proceedings. Within this framework, public documents and their certified copies play a pivotal role. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "Evidence Act") provides a structured approach to the definition, admissibility, and proof of public documents. A certified copy of a public document is a crucial evidentiary tool, facilitating the proof of official records without necessitating the production of often irreplaceable originals or the testimony of custodial officers. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing certified copies of public documents in India, drawing upon statutory provisions, landmark judicial pronouncements, and scholarly interpretations. It examines the definition of public documents, the procedure for obtaining certified copies, their admissibility as secondary evidence, their evidentiary value, and related procedural nuances, integrating insights from the provided reference materials.

2. Defining Public Documents under Indian Law

The concept of a "public document" is foundational to understanding the regime of certified copies. The Evidence Act delineates what constitutes a public document, thereby distinguishing it from private documents.

2.1 Statutory Framework: Section 74, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines public documents as follows:

"The following documents are public documents:— (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts— (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents."

This definition is exhaustive and encompasses a wide array of official records. As noted in Pyare Lal v. Meher Singh Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2010), documents forming acts or records of acts of various authorities and public records of private documents fall under this category. The Patna High Court in Abdul Rashid v. Iftakhar Hussain @ Dablu (Patna High Court, 2025) also reiterated this definition. The Supreme Court in State Of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh And Others (1983 SCC 3 118) considered various public documents, including those maintained under official duties (Section 35, Evidence Act), in an inheritance dispute, highlighting their relevance in proving facts of public interest.

2.2 Judicial Interpretation of Public Documents

Courts have interpreted Section 74 to determine the nature of various documents. For instance, plaints or written statements, which are private documents in origin, partake the character of "public documents" once they are filed in court and retained as permanent records by a public officer (Pyare Lal v. Meher Singh Others, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2010). However, not all documents registered with public authorities become public documents. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rekha v. Ratnashree (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2005), relying on the Privy Council decision in Gopal Das v. Shri Thakurji (AIR 1943 PC 83), held that a registered sale deed is not a public document but a private document. The reasoning is that the original registered document is returned to the party and is not "a public record kept by a State of a private document" in the sense of the original being retained. This view was also echoed in DAYA RAM v. INDIRA (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2023), citing Madamanchi Ramappa And Another v. Muthaluru Bojjappa (1963 AIR SC 1633).

Conversely, documents like First Information Reports (FIRs), site inspection memos, and post-mortem reports prepared by police or doctors in the discharge of official duties are considered public documents (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore And Others, 2001 SCC ONLINE RAJ 94; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Devilal, 1989 SCC ONLINE RAJ 48). The Supreme Court in Mahant Sital Das v. Sant Ram And Others (1954 AIR SC 606) also referred to Section 35 of the Evidence Act concerning the admissibility of entries in public records.

It is pertinent to note that certain official documents, though related to affairs of state, may be privileged from disclosure under Section 123 of the Evidence Act if they are "unpublished official records" and their disclosure would harm public interest (State Of U.P v. Raj Narain And Others, 1975 SCC 4 428). This forms an exception to the general accessibility of public documents.

3. Certified Copies: Definition and Issuance

Once a document is identified as public, the Evidence Act provides a mechanism for obtaining its certified copy, which then serves as a means to prove its contents.

3.1 Section 76, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 76 of the Evidence Act defines certified copies and the duty of public officers to issue them:

"Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies."

This provision was cited and explained in Pyare Lal v. Meher Singh Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2010) and Jamuna Prasad And Others v. Shivnandan And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2011). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. v. KIRAN & 4 ORS. (2024) emphasized these requirements, noting that a photostat copy with a "true copy" endorsement by an advocate does not meet the criteria of Section 76 as the advocate is not the custodian.

3.2 The Right to Inspect and Obtain Copies

Section 76 intrinsically links the right to obtain a certified copy with the "right to inspect" the public document. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in MUNAGALA ROJA HARSHA VARDHINI v. VARDHANSMART PRIVATE LIMITED (2024), citing K Pedda Jangaiah v Mandal Revenue Officer (1996 AIHC 1006 AP), held that "the right to seek a certified copy of public document is dependent on the right to inspect the document." The Civil Rules of Practice may also govern the process, as seen in Indian Auto Gas Company Limited, Chennai-89 v. K. Radha Lakshmi And Another (2013 SCC ONLINE MAD 1174), which referred to Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice for obtaining certificates to enable parties to get certified copies.

4. Admissibility and Proof of Public Documents through Certified Copies

Certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence and serve as a recognized mode of proving the contents of the original public documents.

4.1 Secondary Evidence: Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 65 of the Evidence Act lays down the circumstances in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Specifically, Section 65(e) permits secondary evidence when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74. Section 65(f) allows it when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by the Evidence Act or by any other law to be given in evidence. In cases falling under (e) or (f), "a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible" (Jamuna Prasad And Others v. Shivnandan And Others, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2011). The Supreme Court in Dayamathi Bai (Smt) v. K.M Shaffi (2004 SCC 7 107) dealt with the admissibility of certified copies of sale and gift deeds as secondary evidence, emphasizing timely procedural objections.

4.2 Proof of Contents: Section 77, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 77 of the Evidence Act provides for the proof of public documents by producing certified copies:

"Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies."

This means that the contents of public documents can be proven by merely tendering the certified copy. The Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore And Others (2001 SCC ONLINE RAJ 94), citing Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa (AIR 1963 SC 1633), observed that if a document is a certified copy of a public document, it need not be proved by calling a witness. This principle was also affirmed in Supti Choudhury v. State Of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court, 2008), referencing Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1688).

4.3 Presumption as to Genuineness: Section 79, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 79 of the Evidence Act states that the court "shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer...". This presumption attaches to the certified copy, implying that the copy is a true reproduction of the original and that the certifying officer held the claimed official character. However, this presumption does not extend to the truth of the contents of the document itself, which may still be rebutted by other evidence (Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust Of India, 1982 SCC ONLINE BOM 148).

5. Distinguishing Public Documents from Private Documents

The distinction between public and private documents (Section 75: "All other documents are private") is crucial because the mode of proof differs significantly.

5.1 The Case of Registered Instruments

As discussed earlier, a registered sale deed, despite its registration by a public officer, is generally considered a private document (Rekha v. Ratnashree, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2005; DAYA RAM v. INDIRA, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2023). The Calcutta High Court in Dibakar Mahato & Ors. v. Bhagabat Ch. Mahato & Ors. (1993 SCC ONLINE CAL 146) also grappled with whether a registered deed is a public document, ultimately considering its admissibility as secondary evidence under Section 65(c) if the original is lost or not traceable, rather than solely as a certified copy of a public document under Section 65(e).

5.2 Private Documents in Public Records

Section 74(2) includes "public records kept [in any State] of private documents" within the definition of public documents. This implies that while the original private document (e.g., a will or a mortgage deed) remains private, the record of such a document maintained by a public office (e.g., a Sub-Registrar's office) can be a public document. A certified copy of such a record would then be admissible. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur v. Smt. Chhoti And Others (1990 SCC 1 266) dealt with the inadmissibility of a non-certified copy of a sale deed, emphasizing the need for proper proof for private documents, even if old.

6. Evidentiary Value of Certified Copies

While a certified copy of a public document is admissible and presumed genuine, its evidentiary value concerning the truth of its contents can be a subject of judicial scrutiny.

6.1 Proof of Execution and Contents

A certified copy primarily proves the existence and content of the original public document. Section 77 allows it to be produced "in proof of the contents." For certain public documents, such as those mentioned in Section 35 of the Evidence Act (entries in public or other official books, registers or records, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty), the entries themselves are relevant facts. A certified copy of such an entry would thus be evidence of the transaction or fact recorded (State Of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh And Others, 1983 SCC 3 118).

6.2 Judicial Scrutiny and Limitations

The Bombay High Court in Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust Of India (1982 SCC ONLINE BOM 148), while considering certified copies of returns filed with the Registrar of Companies, discussed whether the truth of their contents is established prima facie. The court observed that while the certified copy proves the original document, the truth of the statements contained in the document might require further proof, depending on the nature of the document and the purpose for which it is tendered. The presumption under Section 79 relates to the genuineness of the copy and the authority of the certifier, not necessarily to the absolute truth of every fact stated in the original document.

7. Procedural Considerations in Tendering Certified Copies

Certain procedural aspects attend the tendering of certified copies in evidence.

7.1 Timeliness of Objections

Objections regarding the mode of proof of a document, such as tendering a certified copy where perhaps the original should have been produced (if not a public document) or if the certification is defective, must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The Supreme Court in Dayamathi Bai (Smt) v. K.M Shaffi (2004 SCC 7 107) held that if objections to the mode of proof are not taken when the document is tendered and marked as an exhibit, they are deemed waived and cannot be raised at an appellate stage. This principle distinguishes objections to the mode of proof from objections to the inherent inadmissibility or relevance of a document.

7.2 Marking as Exhibit versus Admissibility

Merely marking a document as an exhibit does not automatically render it admissible or prove its contents if it is otherwise inadmissible or if its contents require further proof. The Patna High Court in Abdul Rashid v. Iftakhar Hussain @ Dablu (Patna High Court, 2025) observed that "merely marking a document exhibit would not be construed as it has become an admissible evidence because objection to admissibility does not get excluded when the document is marked as exhibit. The court needs to look into such document considering its relevance and other aspects to test its admissibility." This aligns with Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows the court to reject irrelevant or inadmissible documents at any stage (Narendra Prasad & Others v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited, Madras High Court, 2015).

8. Certified Copies in Specific Legislative Contexts

Various statutes also provide for the admissibility of certified copies of documents maintained under their provisions.

8.1 The Registration Act, 1908

Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908, states that all copies given under this section (i.e., copies of entries in Books No. 1 and 2, and indexes) "shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer, and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents." This was noted in Jamuna Prasad & Ors. v. Shivnandan & Ors (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2011), which discussed its interplay with Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (now largely replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).

8.2 The Companies Act

Under the Companies Act (e.g., erstwhile Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, corresponding to Section 399 of the Companies Act, 2013), documents filed with the Registrar of Companies are open to inspection, and certified copies can be obtained. Such certified copies are admissible in evidence (Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust Of India, 1982 SCC ONLINE BOM 148).

8.3 Application in Tribunals

Tribunals, such as Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, often follow a summary procedure and may not insist on strict proof as required by the Evidence Act. Certified copies of public documents like FIRs and post-mortem reports are generally admissible without formal proof (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore And Others, 2001 SCC ONLINE RAJ 94). The Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.R Verma (AIR 1957 SC 882), cited in the Nand Kishore case, held that the Evidence Act has no application to enquiries conducted by tribunals, though they must observe rules of natural justice.

9. The Challenge of Uncertified or Photostat Copies

The legal framework strongly favors certified copies for proving public documents. Ordinary copies, photostat copies, or uncertified copies generally lack the evidentiary value and admissibility of certified copies unless a proper foundation for secondary evidence under other clauses of Section 65 (e.g., loss of original for private documents) is laid. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur v. Smt. Chhoti And Others (1990 SCC 1 266) deemed a non-certified copy of a sale deed inadmissible. Similarly, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. v. KIRAN & 4 ORS. (2024) clearly distinguished between a photostat copy of an FSL report and a certified copy, holding the former inadmissible per se in the absence of compliance with Sections 76 and 77 of the Evidence Act, especially in civil/quasi-judicial proceedings where Section 293 CrPC (regarding reports of certain Government scientific experts) might not directly apply in the same manner.

In the context of electronic records, while State Of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003 SCC 4 601) recognized electronic records as evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the specific requirements for proving electronic records, particularly Section 65B, are distinct. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2020), while primarily focused on Section 65B, does mention certified copies of public records in a comparative context, reinforcing the established methods for paper-based public documents.

10. Conclusion

The legal provisions and judicial interpretations concerning certified copies of public documents in India establish a clear and robust framework for their use in evidence. Sections 74, 76, 77, and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, form the cornerstone of this regime, defining public documents, prescribing the method of certification, ensuring their admissibility, and attaching a presumption of genuineness. While registered private documents like sale deeds are generally not treated as public documents per se, the public records of such private documents can fall within the ambit of Section 74(2). The judiciary has consistently emphasized the importance of proper certification and the timely raising of objections to the mode of proof. The distinction between certified copies and other forms of secondary evidence, such as photostat copies, is critical, with the former enjoying a privileged status in proving the contents of public documents. This system facilitates the efficient administration of justice by allowing reliable proof of official acts and records without unduly burdening public offices or litigants, thereby upholding the integrity and efficacy of the evidentiary process in Indian courts.