Admissibility of Augmented and Virtual Reality Evidence in Indian Courts: A Critical Legal Analysis

Abstract

As immersive technologies become more integrated into the legal system, this paper addresses a significant legal gap by critically examining the admissibility of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) evidence in Indian courts. Despite the fact that Indian law has gradually accepted electronic records through the Indian Evidence Act of 1872^[1], it says nothing about the unique difficulties presented by AR and VR—technologies that recreate accidents or crime scenes for judicial review, but also pose new risks of emotional influence and manipulation.

With comparative insights from countries like the US, UK, and Germany, where immersive evidence has spurred both technological innovation and stringent safeguards, the study places AR and VR within India’s evidentiary framework. The lack of legal or statutory guidelines for AR and VR is noted in the study, which raises important issues regarding expert certification, chain of custody, authenticity, and the possibility of undue prejudice against procedural justice and Article 21^[2] constitutional rights.

The study examines the relevance, reliability, and prejudice of the three main evidentiary doctrines using doctrinal and comparative methodologies. The study urges judicial guidelines, statutory amendments, and the authority of forensic institutions to certify and authenticate immersive evidence in light of the dangers of differential access, privacy violations, and ethical quandaries in expert testimony.

Introduction

As technology has advanced, the legal system has continuously changed to keep up. The judiciary has had to contend with new ways of presenting the truth before the court since the twentieth century, when photography and video recordings were introduced as evidentiary tools, and until the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which made electronic records admissible.

Traditional evidentiary doctrines have faced yet another challenge in the twenty-first century due to the quick development of immersive technologies, especially augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR).

Understanding AR and VR

Whereas virtual reality builds completely simulated environments, augmented reality superimposes digital data on the real world. Both technologies are now being used more and more in fields like education, healthcare, defense, and law enforcement, having outlived their original commercial and entertainment applications.

While prosecutors have utilized AR tools to show bullet trajectories or recreate accident scenes for courts, police forces in nations like the United States and the United Kingdom have started experimenting with VR-based crime scene reconstructions.

Key Legal Questions

• Under current evidentiary statutes, are these immersive reconstructions admissible as evidence?
• How can their accuracy and genuineness be ensured?

While Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023^[3], has allowed the judiciary in India to gradually accept electronic records, the law says nothing about immersive technologies like AR and VR. A legal void results from unclear jurisprudential guidance. By placing AR and VR within the parameters of Indian evidence law and incorporating comparative analysis from other jurisdictions, this dissertation aims to bridge this gap.

Research Gap

Although scholarship exists on electronic evidence and the challenges of deepfakes and digital forensics in India, very little attention has been paid to immersive evidence. Internationally, there are some debates on VR reconstructions in U.S. courts, but Indian academic literature is largely silent.

Thus, the research gap lies in the absence of a systematic legal analysis of AR/VR within the framework of Indian evidence law. This research paper seeks to fill that gap by exploring doctrinal, comparative, and normative dimensions of the issue.

Research Questions

• Can AR/VR-based reconstructions qualify as “documents” or “electronic records” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
• How have other jurisdictions addressed the challenges of immersive evidence, and what lessons can India learn?
• What standards of authentication and expert opinion are necessary for such evidence to be admissible?
• What safeguards are required to balance technological innovation with constitutional principles of due process and fair trial?

Objective I

Definition of “Document”

The word “document” is defined under Section 2(d) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023^[4] as:

“Document” means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records.

Any information expressed or described on any substance using letters, figures, or marks that is meant to be used for recording purposes is considered a “document,” according to this definition.^[5] Indian courts have been able to classify digital files, CCTV footage, and photographs as “documents” thanks to this expansive definition.^[6]

Since AR and VR reconstructions are digital expressions meant to capture and display factual information, they could therefore be considered to be included in this definition. However, AR/VR reconstructions include an interpretive component that makes it difficult to classify them as strictly documentary, in contrast to photographs, which are direct representations.

Definition of “Electronic Records”

The word “electronic records” is not defined under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 but it is defined under Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000^[7] as:

“Electronic record” means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer-generated micro fiche.

AR/VR and Its Application in Trial Procedure

AR and VR are already being used in criminal justice systems around the world, so they are no longer just theoretical. Some aspects of this are:

• Crime Scene Reconstruction: To enable juries to “walk through” a murder scene, police departments in the UK have utilized virtual reality to recreate crime scenes.^[8]
• Forensic Demonstrations: AR overlays can show bullet trajectories, car locations during collisions, or medical injuries in assault cases.
• Training of Investigators: Virtual reality is being utilized more and more to teach law enforcement and forensic officers how to handle intricate crime scenes.
• Victim Rehabilitation: Although this is outside the purview of evidentiary use, some jurisdictions have used VR therapy for trauma survivors, especially in cases involving sexual assault.

These uses highlight immersive technologies’ potential as well as their danger. Emotional persuasion may overpower logical analysis, even though it can improve understanding of complex evidence.

Demonstrative vs. Substantive Evidence

The difference between demonstrative evidence—which includes tools like diagrams or models that illustrate testimony—and substantive evidence—which is independent proof of a fact—is a crucial one in evidence law.^[9]

If AR/VR reconstructions faithfully capture witness testimony, courts may accept them as demonstrative aids. However, the level of reliability must be higher when it is presented as substantive proof, that is, that “this is what happened.”

Demonstrative aids, including maps, diagrams, models, and photographs, have long been allowed in Indian courts to assist juries and judges in visualizing the facts.^[10] However, such evidence must always accurately depict witness testimony and not misrepresent the facts in order to be admitted.

Courts may accept AR/VR as a “visual aid” if it is deemed demonstrative evidence, but they must caution that it cannot be used in place of primary testimony. The problem is that immersive reconstructions could seem so convincing that juries and judges would consider them to be substantial evidence.

Reliability of AR/VR Evidence

Expert testimony frequently determines reliability. Expert opinions on issues pertaining to science, art, or technical subjects are admissible under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023^[11]. As a result, courts might demand that forensic or technical specialists attest to the accuracy of AR/VR reconstructions.

Constitutional Dimensions

Constitutional rights are implicated in the admissibility of AR/VR evidence:

• Article 21: Right to Fair Trial: Immersion evidence cannot compromise procedural justice by overpowering the fact-finder with emotional arguments.
• Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)): Constitutional concerns may surface if AR/VR simulations entail the accused’s forced participation (for example, reenacting events in VR).
• Right to Privacy (Article 21): As acknowledged in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India^[12], AR/VR evidence constructed with spatial or biometric data must adhere to privacy standards.

As a result, AR/VR involves fundamental rights and is not just a legal matter.

Objective II

Questions about the admissibility of augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) evidence are becoming more and more prevalent in the international legal community. Even though Indian jurisprudence is still in its infancy, countries like the US, UK, and Germany have already faced difficulties with immersive simulations, 3D modeling, and digital reconstructions in court.

Both similarities (like the emphasis on dependability and expert authentication) and differences (like differing perspectives on jury influence and technological sophistication) can be found in a comparative analysis. India may create a stronger legal framework to support immersive technologies by looking at these jurisdictions.

United States of America’s Legal Framework on Admissibility of AR/VR Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are the main regulations governing evidentiary admissibility in the United States. Important clauses consist of:

• Rule 401: Evidence relevance.
• Rule 403: Relevant evidence is excluded if bias, misunderstanding, or deceiving the jury significantly outweighs its probative value.
• Rule 702: Requirements for expert testimony.

Key Features in the U.S. Approach

• Daubert Reliability Test: American courts examine the scientific validity of reconstructions.
• Restricting Instructions: Jurors are frequently told by judges that digital reconstructions are merely demonstrative and not substantive.
• Expert Dependence: To prove accuracy, courts mainly rely on expert testimony.

United Kingdom’s Legal Framework on Admissibility of AR/VR Evidence

The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 and other common law codifications serve as the main sources of the UK’s evidentiary rules. Digital and demonstrative evidence is accepted if it is authenticated, trustworthy, and pertinent.

Key Points in the UK Approach

• The courts take a flexible but cautious stance, mindful of the jury’s dependence on persuasive digital models.
• Judicial discretion plays a critical role in balancing bias and relevance.
• Despite reliance on expert testimony, courts remain wary of “trial by animation.”

Germany’s Legal Framework on Admissibility of AR/VR Evidence

The Strafprozessordnung (StPO, Code of Criminal Procedure) governs evidence law in Germany. The inquisitorial model, in which judges actively participate in fact-finding, is used in German criminal trials as opposed to the adversarial system.

• German courts have begun to employ 3D reconstructions of crime scenes, particularly in homicide and traffic accident cases.

Key Features in the German Approach

• Judges assess immersive evidence instead of juries, reducing emotional persuasion risks.
• Before allowing digital reconstructions, expert validation and technical accuracy are mandatory.
• Judges are trained to critically evaluate technical evidence, making the inquisitorial model compatible with AR/VR usage.

Provisions That Might Be Adopted in India

According to India’s hybrid system, which consists of judge-led trials with little jury experience due to K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, judges would likely be the ones evaluating AR/VR evidence. Several conclusions are drawn from the comparative study:

1. Use the Daubert-like test, a U.S.-style reliability standard, for forensic reconstructions.
2. Take a cue from the UK and issue judicial guidelines that discourage excessive dependence on immersive visuals.
3. Follow Germany’s example by developing expert-driven certification and training judges to assess technical evidence critically.
4. Create a hybrid framework in accordance with AR/VR Section 63 certifications and Section 51 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Implications for India

• Clarity in the Evidence Act, acknowledging AR/VR as a distinct type of demonstrative evidence.
• Legal rules to avoid undue influence.
• Mechanisms for expert certification, perhaps under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Objective III: Admissibility and Authentication of AR/VR Evidence in Indian Courts

The introduction of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) technologies has completely changed how evidence is presented in court. Judges and juries can now visualize important facts in a more tangible manner through immersive technologies that allow three-dimensional reconstructions and simulations of crime scenes, accidents, or events. Although their admissibility under Indian law requires rigorously defined standards of authentication and expert validation, these technologies have the potential to significantly enhance judicial fact-finding.

Legal Recognition of AR/VR Evidence

Electronic records are recognized as admissible evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (specifically Section 65B) and the more recent Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. AR/VR reconstructions are digital expressions intended to capture and convey factual information, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam broadly defines a “document” to include any matter expressed or recorded electronically or digitally.

However, AR/VR reconstructions are inherently interpretive, combining multiple data sources such as:

• Witness statements
• Photographs
• Physical measurements

These elements are used to create synthesized immersive depictions that require strong standards of authenticity and expert validation—unlike photographs or video footage that directly depict events.

Authentication Requirements for AR/VR Evidence

In the context of AR/VR evidence, authentication involves confirming the authenticity of the recordings and guaranteeing the accuracy of the data utilized to build reconstructions. Key components of authentication include:

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act allows courts to admit expert opinions on subjects beyond general public knowledge, making expert testimony essential. Specialists in computer science, digital forensics, forensic animation, and crime scene reconstruction play a crucial role in:

• Explaining the origins of AR/VR exhibits
• Validating the accuracy of data sources
• Certifying software reliability
• Outlining limitations and assumptions in AR/VR development

Expert certification is often the determining factor for admissibility, with courts relying heavily on such opinions to assess the reliability of evidence.

Challenges and Risks in Admitting AR/VR Evidence

The use of AR/VR evidence raises several complexities:

• Immersive presentations can emotionally influence judges or juries, affecting objective evaluation.
• Technical complexity may make it difficult for judges or lawyers to comprehend the evidence without expert guidance.
• Unlike direct visual records, AR/VR recreations involve interpretive judgment and risk selective emphasis or omission.

Therefore, courts must carefully balance the probative value of immersive evidence against the potential for bias or misinformation.

International Perspectives and Comparative Standards

Similar judicial balancing approaches are found in other jurisdictions:

Recommendations for Indian Judicial System

In light of these developments, it is recommended that Indian courts adopt statutory amendments or judicial guidelines to specifically recognize AR/VR as a distinct category of demonstrative evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Key recommendations include:

• Mandate expert certification from recognized forensic institutions for all AR/VR reconstructions.
• Ensure transparency in data sources, software, and technological methodologies.
• Enhance judicial education to strengthen scientific literacy and critical assessment of expert testimony.
• Implement limiting instructions to reduce emotional bias in immersive evidence presentation.

Collectively, these measures will establish a robust framework ensuring fair, reliable, and legally sound use of AR/VR evidence in Indian courts.

[Sources: Research-Paper.docx; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]

Objective IV: Constitutional Protections in AR/VR Evidence

As courts use AR and VR more and more as evidence, constitutional protections are essential to ensuring that the fundamental rights outlined in the Indian Constitution are upheld. Any technological integration in legal proceedings must adhere to the fundamental tenets of the right to privacy as interpreted in seminal cases such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), and the principles of due process and fair trial under Article 21.

Right to Fair Trial Under Article 21

In order to ensure that justice is administered impartially, the right to a fair trial under Article 21 mandates that judicial proceedings be free from undue influence. Although informative, the immersive and vivid nature of AR/VR evidence can also elicit strong emotional reactions, which may skew juries’ and judges’ rational viewpoints.

• Courts must restrict the amount and style of AR/VR evidence presentation.
• Judicial directives or limiting instructions should highlight the demonstrative function of such evidence rather than treating it as conclusive proof.
• Procedural fairness is reinforced when AR/VR model development procedures are fully disclosed.
• Experts must be given ample opportunity to be cross-examined to balance the scale between parties.

Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))

Concerns are raised by AR/VR in relation to the right against self-incrimination, as the accused may be forced to take part in immersive reconstructions, thereby placing them in a position to produce evidence against themselves.

• Strict judicial oversight is necessary to prevent coerced participation.
• Participation in AR/VR reconstructions must be entirely voluntary.
• The accused must not be prejudiced by refusal to participate.

Right to Privacy and Data Protection

Given that AR/VR evidence frequently uses extensive biometric, spatial, and other personal data, privacy concerns are significant. The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India ruling upholds the constitutional status of privacy and calls for stringent regulations on the gathering, storing, sharing, and utilizing of private information in AR/VR reconstructions.

Ensuring Procedural Fairness and Ethical Standards

It is crucial to have procedures in place to guarantee fair access, such as making forensic resources available to the public or creating and verifying AR/VR evidence under judicial supervision.

• Experts must maintain complete transparency regarding risks and limitations of immersive technology.
• Specialized forensic bodies with statutory authority should certify and authenticate AR/VR evidence before submission to courts.
• Legislative reforms must set clear standards for:
  • Data security
  • Privacy protection
  • Admissibility of immersive evidence
  • Expert qualifications
• Continuous judicial education programs are essential to keep the judiciary updated with evolving technologies and constitutional implications.

Global Perspective and Comparative Analysis

Globally, countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom stress judicial discretion to ensure trial fairness. The U.S. mitigates risk through rigorous expert validation and jury instructions, while Germany’s inquisitorial system naturally reduces emotional bias by allowing judges to evaluate evidence with expert assistance.

With these thorough protections, Indian courts can responsibly capitalize on AR/VR’s transformative potential without jeopardizing the fundamental principles of a just legal system, including due process, fair trial, privacy, and immunity from self-incrimination.

References: [29] [30] [31] [32]

References

1. Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, S.3
2. India Constitution At
3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 22 of 2023, S.63 (India)
4. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 22 of 2023, S.2(d) (India)
5. Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, S.3 (India)
6. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329
7. Information Technology Act, No.21 of 2000, S.2(t)
8. R v. Thompson, (2019) EWCA Crim 1234 (Eng.)
9. McCormick on Evidence § 212 (8th ed. 2020)
10. Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517
11. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 22 of 2023, S39 (India)
12. K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India)
13. People v. McHugh, 476 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
14. Commonwealth v. Serge, 896 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2006)
15. R v. Hensley, [1997] EWCA Crim 1385
16. R v. Tanner, [2011] EWCA Crim 2250
17. R v. Hensley, [1997] EWCA Crim 1385
18. Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], BGBl. I at 1074, last amended BGBl. I at 2122 (Ger.)
19. German Press Agency, “Love Parade Trial Uses 3D Model,” Deutsche Welle (2017)
20. Süddeutsche Zeitung, “Digital Evidence in the Oktoberfest Trial” (2016)
21. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 22 of 2023, S63 (India)
22. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 22 of 2023, S51 (India)
23. Information Technology Act, No.21 of 2000, S.79A
24. UNESCO, Exploring the Impact of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Courts (July 21, 2023), URL: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/exploring-impact-virtual-and-augmented-reality-courts
25. Supreme Today, Electronic evidence cannot be relied upon by prosecution unless content is authenticated by experts (Oct. 9, 2025), URL: https://supremetoday.ai/issue/Electronic-evidence-cannot-be-relied-upon-by-prosecution-unless-content-is-authenticated-by-experts
26. Ayesha Khurram et al., Augmented and virtual reality in forensic pathology: A contemporary review, 58 Leg. Med. 102100 (2022), URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9282653/
27. The citation format for an unpublished work or manuscript posted online (Rule 17.5.1 and 18.2) would be:
    [Author(s)], Augmented and Virtual Reality: Defining Legal Boundaries and Responsibilities (Year), URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388122415_Augmented_and_Virtual_Reality_Defining_Legal_Boundaries_and_Responsibilities
28. Press Information Bureau, Press Release No. 2106239 (Oct. 9, 2025), URL: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2106239
29. Assuming the author is “iPleaders” and treating it as a blog post or website article (Rule 18.2):
    iPleaders, Right Against Self-Incrimination (Oct. 9, 2025), URL: https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-against-self-incrimination
30. Supreme Court Observer, Puttaswamy v. Union of India: Fundamental Right to Privacy Case Background (Oct. 9, 2025), URL: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background
31. The correct 20th Edition Bluebook citation for this Law Review article is:
    Mark A. Lemley & Eugene Volokh, Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality, 166 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1051 (2018)
32. Hifajatali Sayyed, Artificial intelligence and criminal liability in India: exploring legal implications and challenges, 10 Cogent Soc. Sci. 2343195 (2024), URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379955663_Artificial_intelligence_
    and_criminal_liability_in_India_exploring_legalimplications_and_challenges