The development of information technology has generated several legal debates. Most of these debates are concerned with substantive rights and obligations. However, the enforcement of these substantive rights and obligations, to a large extent, depends on the effectiveness of procedural laws. This article focuses on one of the most important procedural issues—admissibility of electronic evidence. The factual bedrock for the enforcement of substantive rights and obligations is dependent on the framework we adopt for admissibility of electronic evidence. This article identifies four most important issues surrounding the admissibility of electronic evidence: (i) the debate between special framework and general framework; (ii) the substantive content of the conditions of admissibility; (iii) certification requirements; and (iv) the dichotomy of primary and secondary evidence. For discussing these issues, the experience of the Indian framework lies in the heart of this article. Where relevant, the article also draws lessons from other jurisdictions including the USA, the UK, Canada, South Africa and Australia to discuss the way these debates have been addressed in different jurisdictions.

中文翻译：

---

重新考虑电子证据的可采性

信息技术的发展引起了一些法律辩论。这些辩论大多数涉及实质性权利和义务。但是，这些实质性权利和义务的执行在很大程度上取决于程序法的效力。本文重点介绍最重要的程序问题之一-电子证据的可采性。实施实质性权利和义务的事实基础取决于我们为电子证据的可采性所采用的框架。本文确定了围绕电子证据可采性的四个最重要的问题：（i）特殊框架与一般框架之间的辩论；（ii）受理条件的实质内容；（iii）认证要求；（iv）主要证据和次要证据的二分法。对于讨论这些问题，印度框架的经验是本文的重点。在适当时，本文还借鉴了其他司法管辖区的经验教训，包括美国，英国，加拿大，南非和澳大利亚，以讨论在不同司法管辖区处理这些辩论的方式。