Supreme Court Judgment on Photocopy Evidence: Overview
Photocopies are everywhere in Indian litigation — copies of agreements, receipts, powers of attorney, wills, letters and property papers are routinely filed with plaints and written statements. Many litigants assume that a photocopy, especially a notarised or attested one, is as good as the original. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise. Under the "best evidence" rule, the contents of a document must ordinarily be proved by producing the original; a photocopy is secondary evidence and can be used only in the specific situations the law allows.
The February 2026 judgment in Tharammel Peethambaran restates these principles in a structured way and applies them strictly: because the photocopied power of attorney had never been properly brought on record as secondary evidence, it was treated as no evidence at all, and the property sales that depended on it fell with it. This page explains the case, the legal test and what it means for anyone relying on — or facing — a photocopy in court.
What Was the Case About?
A woman living in Mumbai owned three properties in Kozhikode, Kerala, and in 1998 executed a power of attorney in favour of her brother to manage them. In 2007, the brother executed registered sale deeds in favour of two relatives, claiming the power of attorney authorised him to sell. The owner said she had deliberately deleted the power to sell from the draft and that the document used for the sale had been tampered with. The brother could not produce the original power of attorney and relied on a notarised photocopy. The trial court declared the sale deeds void; the first appellate court reversed that decision relying on the photocopy; the Kerala High Court restored the trial court's decree; and the Supreme Court dismissed the purchasers' appeal.
The Main Legal Questions
The Court had to decide whether a notarised photocopy of a power of attorney, placed on record without following the procedure for secondary evidence, could be relied upon to prove the extent of the authority granted; whether presumptions under Section 85 of the Evidence Act (notarised powers of attorney) and Section 33 of the Registration Act could be invoked for such a copy; and whether the High Court had exceeded its limited second-appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by setting aside findings based on that photocopy.
Key Principles Laid Down by the Court (6 February 2026 Judgment)
The following is a structured, plain-English summary of the principles the Court restated and applied — read together with the earlier precedents on which it relied.
Primary Evidence Is the Rule; Secondary Evidence Is the Exception
Documents must be proved by primary evidence — the original. So long as the original is within a party's possession or reach, it cannot fall back on a copy. A photocopy is a copy "made by mechanical process" and is, at best, secondary evidence.
A Two-Step, Conjunctive Test Must Be Satisfied
First, the party must establish the right to lead secondary evidence: that the original existed and was executed, and a valid reason for its non-production falling within one of the clauses of Section 65 (now Section 60 BSA). Second, the party must prove that the copy is a true copy — for instance, by explaining when, how and from whom the photocopy was made.
Exhibit Marking Is Not Proof; No Formal Application Needed
Marking a photocopy as an exhibit does not dispense with proving it; courts must decide admissibility and examine probative value. At the same time, a separate application to lead secondary evidence is not mandatory — the foundation can be laid in the pleadings or during evidence.
No Presumptions for an Unadmitted Photocopy
Presumptions such as those under Section 85 of the Evidence Act (notarised powers of attorney) and Section 33 of the Registration Act cannot be applied to a photocopy that was never properly admitted as secondary evidence. The Court also reiterated that judges should not compare disputed signatures themselves when the comparison signatures are not admitted ones.
Relevant Legal Framework
The rules on photocopies and other secondary evidence are statutory. Since 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), largely re-numbering the same provisions. Knowing which provision applies is often the first step in deciding whether a copy can be used.
| Primary Evidence — BSA Sec. 57 (formerly IEA Sec. 62) | Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. This is the "best evidence" the law expects a party to produce. |
|---|---|
| Secondary Evidence — BSA Sec. 58 (formerly IEA Sec. 63) | Defines secondary evidence exhaustively: certified copies, copies made by mechanical processes that ensure accuracy (including photocopies), copies compared with such copies, counterparts, and oral accounts by a person who has seen the document. |
| Proof by Primary Evidence — BSA Sec. 59 (formerly IEA Sec. 64) | Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases specifically mentioned in the law. |
| When Secondary Evidence Is Allowed — BSA Sec. 60 (formerly IEA Sec. 65) | Permits secondary evidence where the original is in the possession of the opposite party or a third party who fails to produce it after notice; its existence is admitted in writing; it is lost or destroyed; it cannot easily be moved; it is a public document; a certified copy is permitted by law; or it consists of numerous accounts. |
| Notice to Produce — BSA Sec. 64 (formerly IEA Sec. 66) | Where the original is with the opposite party, secondary evidence can ordinarily be given only after notice to produce it has been served, subject to listed exceptions. |
| Electronic Records — BSA Sec. 63 (formerly IEA Sec. 65B) | Printouts and copies of electronic records (emails, WhatsApp chats, CCTV footage) follow a separate regime and generally require a certificate of authenticity, as held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020). |
Timeline of Important Laws and Judgments
Indian Evidence Act Enacted
Sections 61–66 establish the primary/secondary evidence framework and the exhaustive list of cases where secondary evidence is permitted.
Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube
The Supreme Court holds that a party relying on a photostat copy must explain the circumstances in which it was made and who had the original at the time.
J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani
The Court holds that secondary evidence is admissible only in the circumstances listed in Section 65, and that photocopies not compared with the original cannot be received as secondary evidence.
H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam
The Court holds that a photocopy cannot be admitted without a factual foundation, and that a party whose original is found inadmissible cannot introduce secondary evidence of its contents.
Rakesh Mohindra, Jagmail Singh & Dhanpat
The Court clarifies that courts must be satisfied about foundational facts before allowing secondary evidence (2016), that primary evidence is the rule (2020), and that no separate application is required to lead secondary evidence (2020).
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Comes Into Force
The BSA, 2023 replaces the Indian Evidence Act, carrying forward the primary/secondary evidence rules in Sections 57–64.
Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan
The Supreme Court restates the two-step test, holds an unadmitted notarised photocopy of a power of attorney to be no evidence, and upholds the voiding of sale deeds executed on its basis.
Binding Law Across All Courts
Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the ruling binds all courts in India and is being applied in civil and criminal trials where photocopies are tendered.
What Does This Judgment Mean in Practice?
For Civil Litigants
If your case depends on a document, produce the original. If you only have a copy, you must plead and prove why the original is unavailable and that the copy is genuine — or risk the court treating it as no evidence, even at the final stage or in appeal.
For Property Owners & Buyers
Transactions based on photocopied powers of attorney or agreements are vulnerable. If the original authority cannot be produced and proved, a sale executed on its basis can be declared void, leaving purchasers exposed.
For Trial Courts
Courts must decide admissibility before endorsing a photocopy as an exhibit, record satisfaction that the foundational facts are established, and avoid comparing disputed signatures themselves when the comparison signatures are not admitted.
For Criminal Cases & the Accused
The same evidence rules apply in criminal trials. Photocopied agreements, receipts or letters relied on by either side must meet the secondary-evidence test; electronic records additionally need the required certificate.
Guidance for Parties Relying on a Photocopy and for Parties Opposing One
This judgment affects the two sides of a dispute very differently — the party who has only a copy of a key document, and the party against whom that copy is being used. What you should do next depends on which side you are on.
If You Need to Rely on a Photocopy
- Make every effort to trace the original — check banks, Sub-Registrar offices, lawyers, family members and the opposite party.
- If the original is with the opposite party or a third party, serve a formal notice to produce it and keep proof of service.
- If it is lost or destroyed, gather evidence of the loss — a police report, affidavits of witnesses, correspondence — and plead these facts clearly.
- Prove that the original existed and was executed, for example through the testimony of an attesting witness or the person who saw it signed.
- Be ready to explain who made the photocopy, when, and from which original, so the court can accept it as a true copy.
- For public documents, obtain a certified copy from the relevant office, which is treated differently from an ordinary photocopy.
If a Photocopy Is Being Used Against You
- Object to the admissibility of the photocopy at the earliest stage — ideally when it is tendered or marked — and ensure your objection is recorded.
- Point out if no foundation has been laid: no proof the original existed, no explanation for its absence, or no notice to produce.
- If you dispute the document's genuineness, say so expressly in your pleadings and consider seeking a handwriting or forensic expert.
- Argue that presumptions (for notarised or registered documents) cannot be claimed for a copy that was never validly admitted, relying on Tharammel Peethambaran.
- Remember that even if your objection is overruled at trial, admissibility of secondary evidence can be challenged in appeal.
Does This Judgment Apply to Your Situation?
Whether a photocopy can be used depends on the type of document, where the original is, why it cannot be produced, whether the other side admits or disputes it, and the stage your case has reached. The principles are settled, but applying them is highly fact-specific.
Read the Original Supreme Court Judgment
Wherever possible, refer to the original court record for the exact findings and reasoning rather than relying solely on editorial summaries — including this one.
📄 Visit Supreme Court of India WebsiteRelated / Landmark Cases on Photocopies & Secondary Evidence
These judgments form the legal backdrop against which courts decide whether a photocopy can be used today. This is general legal information — always have a lawyer confirm how a precedent applies to your specific facts.
Tharammel Peethambaran & Anr. v. T. Ushakrishnan & Anr.
The Court held that a notarised photocopy of a power of attorney, placed on record without following the secondary-evidence procedure, was no evidence. Sale deeds executed by the agent on the strength of that document were held void, and the High Court's decision was upheld.
J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani — (2007) 5 SCC 730
The Court held that Section 65 is exhaustive, that secondary evidence can be led only in the situations it lists, and that photocopies which had not been compared with the original could not be received as secondary evidence.
H. Siddiqui (D) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam — AIR 2011 SC 1492
The Court held that a photocopy could not be relied on where no foundation had been laid for secondary evidence, and that where an original is itself inadmissible because the party failed to prove it, the same party cannot introduce secondary evidence of its contents.
Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri — (2016) 16 SCC 483
The Court held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof, and that a court cannot allow secondary evidence unless foundational facts — such as the loss of the original or the reason for its non-production — are established.
Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh — (2020) 5 SCC 178
The Court reaffirmed that facts must be established by primary evidence, and explained that once the conditions for secondary evidence are met, the party should be allowed to lead it — with its genuineness and probative value to be tested at trial.