The Supreme Court’s Alarm on AI-Generated Matrimonial Evidence

By: Advvocate Kanak Purohit, Bombay High Court 

On January 20, 2026, in the landmark case of Neha Lal vs. Abhishek Kumar (2026 INSC 73), the Supreme Court of India sounded a major alarm. A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan observed that matrimonial disputes are becoming "battlefields" where evidence isn't just collected—it's being created using Artificial Intelligence.

As "Deepfake Discovery" becomes a courtroom reality, the traditional legal strategies of the 19th-century Evidence Act are failing. This post explores the transition to the BSA 2023 and the impact on Section 144 BNSS (Maintenance) cases.

1. The Death of the "Gold Standard" & The Liar's Dividend

For decades, photographs and voice recordings were the "Gold Standard" of proof in family courts. In 2026, we are witnessing an Epistemological Crisis.

• The Liar’s Dividend: This is a dangerous phenomenon where legitimate evidence is dismissed as "synthetic" and fabricated AI-evidence is accepted as "real" because it looks "too perfect."

• SC Observation: The Court noted that rushing to criminalize marital disagreements using AI-bolstered "false allegations" is destroying lives and careers beyond repair.

2. The "Section 144 BNSS" Strategy (Maintenance)

In maintenance disputes (formerly Section 125 CrPC), the "highly qualified wife" or "unemployed husband" narratives are now often supported by AI-manipulated bank statements or morphed photos.

• The Rank 1469 Insight: Success in 2026 litigation won't go to the loudest arguer, but to the one who can conduct a Source Metadata Audit. If your opponent submits a digital record without a proper Part B Certificate under Section 63 BSA, it is inadmissible per se.

3. From Section 65B (IEA) to Section 63 (BSA): What Changed?

While the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 aims to modernize digital proof, the procedural hurdle is now significantly higher. A simple certificate of origin is no longer a shield.

Feature	Indian Evidence Act (Sec 65B)	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Sec 63)
Legal Status	Secondary Evidence.	Primary Evidence (if produced from proper custody).
Certification	Signed by a "Responsible Official."	Two-Tiered: Signed by the person in charge AND an expert.
Integrity Proof	Basic descriptive certificate.	Mandatory Hash Value (SHA256) and algorithm disclosure.
Format	Basic letter.	Must follow the Prescribed Schedule (Part A & Part B).

Author's Note:

"In my practice at a Mumbai firm, I’ve seen that the biggest mistake juniors make is not challenging the 'Hash Value' early. A technically perfect Section 63 certificate can be generated for a deepfake. The solution? Demand the Device Logs and the Algorithm Disclosure used to generate the evidence. If they can't provide the 'Digital Fingerprint,' the evidence fails the integrity test of the 2026 courts."