Supreme Court reiterates the principle that a photocopy of a document is no evidence without satisfying statutory conditions for secondary evidence

INTRODUCTION

Supreme Court recently held a photocopy of a document is no evidence in the eyes of law—refers to a principle reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in recent judgments, particularly emphasized in a ruling reported around early February 2026.

Facts 

A civil appeal involving a disputed sale based on a photocopied Power of Attorney, the Court clearly stated:

“A photocopy of a document is no evidence unless the same is proved by following the procedure set out.” This aligns with longstanding Indian evidence law under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now largely carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, effective from July 1, 2024), but the recent affirmation has been widely discussed in legal circles.

Observations 

Under Indian law:

Primary evidence → The original document itself (Section 62 / equivalent in new law).

Secondary evidence → Includes photocopies / certified copies / other copies (Section 63), but admissible only under specific conditions listed in Section 65.

A mere photocopy (Xerox / photostat copy) is secondary evidence, not primary. It is not automatically admissible and carries no evidentiary value unless the party satisfies the preconditions for admitting secondary evidence.

When can a photocopy be admitted and treated as evidence?

Secondary evidence (like a photocopy) is admissible only if one of the following grounds under Section 65 is proved:

1. The original is lost or destroyed.

2. The original was in the possession/control of the opposite party, who failed to produce it after notice (Section 66).

3. The original consists of a document of which many counterparts exist (rare for photocopies).

4. The original is not easily movable.

5. The original is a public document (and a certified copy is usually used instead).

6. Certified copies permitted by law in place of original.

Even after admission as secondary evidence, the contents of the photocopy are not proved unless:

Its accuracy is established (e.g., by the person who made the copy, or someone who compared it with the original).

Foundational evidence shows it is a true reproduction of the original.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held in several other cases that:

A photocopy filed without explaining the absence of the original and without laying a proper foundation is inadmissible. Even if marked/exhibited during trial (sometimes provisionally), it has no evidentiary value unless the above conditions are met. Relying solely on such a photocopy can vitiate findings (as happened in the recent case where a sale deed based on photocopied POA was set aside).

Conclusion

In civil suits (property disputes, agreements, cheques, etc.), parties often file photocopies casually. Courts frequently reject them at final judgment stage if conditions aren't fulfilled.

In criminal cases too, photocopies of documents (e.g., agreements, receipts) face the same bar unless secondary evidence procedure is followed.

Exception → Certified copies of public documents (Section 65(e) + Section 76) are treated differently and usually admissible without further proof. Mere marking of a photocopy as an exhibit does **not** mean it is proved or reliable.

In short, the recent Supreme Court observation restates a well-established rule rather than creating a completely new one: A bare photocopy, without satisfying the statutory conditions for secondary evidence, is as good as no evidence in the eyes of law.