The Evolution of the Offer and Acceptance Doctrine in the Digital Age: A Critical Analysis under the Indian Contract Act and the IT Act

Abstract

The fast digital revolution has completely changed how people and companies conduct business, demanding a serious reconsideration of the traditional principles of contract law. The foundational element in this change is the doctrine of offer and acceptance, enshrined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This paper embarks on a quest to explore the intricacies of how these fundamental principles are being transformed with the advent of the digital age, where transactions are instant, automated, and often transnational.

One area of concern is the importance of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides legal status to electronic contracts and digital signatures, thus creating a legal platform for online transactions. However, questions remain as to whether it suffices in handling complex matters of digital consent, particularly in click-wrap and browse-wrap agreements, where user assent is not necessarily evident. The paper also discusses evidentiary issues under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, especially regarding the admissibility of electronic records that still present barriers in judicial proceedings.

By scrutinizing key Supreme Court decisions, this paper demonstrates the developing jurisprudence on digital contracting and considers that, despite the achieved success, doctrinal clarity and legislative change are needed to ensure fairness and legal certainty in the digital marketplace.

Keywords: Online Transactions, Admissibility, Digital Consent, Electronic Contracts, Click-Wrap Agreements, Browse-Wrap Agreements.

Introduction

The digital revolution has altered the way people do business by replacing face-to-face contracts with e-contracts. This shift necessitates a re-evaluation of the conventional doctrines of contract law, specifically offer and acceptance, to see how they can be adapted to fit digital transactions. In India, three legislative frameworks determine this development: the Indian Contract Act (ICA), which provides the basic requirements of a contract; the Information Technology (IT) Act, which provides statutory recognition to e-commerce; and the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), which governs the evidentiary quality of electronic records. Collectively, these statutes form the legal framework for digital contracting in India.

Under the ICA, the doctrine of offer and acceptance remains central. Section 2(a) defines an offer as an expression of willingness to act or abstain, intending to obtain assent from another party, whereas Section 2(b) defines acceptance as an unqualified expression of assent. When communicated, offer and acceptance amount to a legally binding promise. Judicial decisions have emphasized the necessity of communication. The concept of instantaneous communications, such as telephones, was addressed under the receipt rule, which states that communication is valid only when received by the offeror. Though pre-digital, this rationale provides a framework to analyze disputes arising from instant or automated electronic communications.

The IT Act, 2000, marked a paradigm shift by legitimizing electronic commerce. Section 10A prevents the non-enforcement of contracts merely because they are in electronic form, while Sections 3 and 3A give electronic signatures the same legal effect as handwritten signatures, provided they meet the requirements of security and authentication. These provisions build confidence in online transactions. However, the IT Act functions more as an enabling law rather than a comprehensive one. Although it legitimizes electronic contracting, how fundamental requirements of the ICA—such as free consent, intention, and certainty of terms—apply to technologically mediated interactions remains unresolved. This gap has compelled courts to reconcile statutory provisions with established contract principles.

A major challenge lies in the mechanism of digital consent. Click-wrap agreements, where consent is given by clicking an “I Agree” button, are typically enforceable due to their clarity and resemblance to traditional acceptance. Browse-wrap agreements, in which consent is implied by using the site, are more controversial, as users may not be aware of the terms. This contradiction highlights the doctrinal clash between transactional efficiency and informed consent, which lies at the core of contract law.

Evidentiary aspects are also crucial. Sections 65A and 65B of the IEA govern the admissibility of electronic records. Section 65B(4) requires a certificate specifying the source and conditions of electronic evidence. The judiciary initially issued conflicting opinions on the necessity of this certificate, but the Supreme Court later ruled it mandatory for secondary evidence. While this helps ensure authenticity, cases have often been dismissed for procedural reasons rather than on their substantive merits.

The evolution of offer and acceptance in the digital context is both flexible and limiting. The ICA provides doctrinal clarity, the IT Act supports digital mediums, and the IEA assures evidentiary credibility. However, emerging technologies such as AI-based contract negotiations, blockchain-based smart contracts, and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) expose the limitations of existing laws. The pace of innovation exceeds that of legislative reform, forcing courts to bridge the gaps. The interplay between statutory law and judicial interpretation reveals that India’s digital contracting framework is dynamic—a continuous balance between the traditional and modern in the digital era. Research Questions

• What concept of offer and acceptance under the Indian Contract Act has been challenged by modern digital communication and transactions?
• What is the role of the IT Act in establishing digital contracts, especially concerning consent in click-wrap and browse-wrap agreements?
• What are the main procedural and evidentiary issues in establishing the validity and enforceability of a digital contract before Indian courts?
• How have Supreme Court decisions harmonized the principles of the Indian Contract Act with the IT Act to shape digital contract jurisprudence?
• Are any amendments required in the current ICA to adapt to evolving technology and changing conditions?

Research Objectives

• To discuss conceptual issues presented by modern digital communication and transactions in relation to the doctrine of offer and acceptance under the Indian Contract Act.
• To assess the adequacy of the IT Act in forming digital contracts, especially regarding consent in click-wrap and browse-wrap agreements.
• To determine and analyze procedural and evidentiary challenges in proving the validity and enforceability of digital contracts in Indian courts.
• To critically evaluate how landmark Supreme Court decisions have harmonized the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and the IT Act in determining the jurisdiction of digital contracts.
• To explore whether amendments to the ICA are necessary to address the complexities of digital contracts and emerging technologies.

Review of Literature

Sreelakshmi B, The Indian Contract Act to the Information Technology Act: Analysis of Validity and Legality of Electronic Contracts in India (2022)

The author reviews the transition from traditional contract law governed by the ICA to the legal framework of electronic contracts under the IT Act. The paper examines legal issues and uncertainties surrounding new types of contracts such as click-wrap, browse-wrap, and shrink-wrap agreements. It explores how the elements of a valid contract—particularly free consent—are satisfied in these digital forms and addresses differing legal interpretations regarding their validity in India. The study underscores the need for explicit legislation to keep pace with the growth of e-commerce.

Yadav, R. N., Digital Contracts in India: Legal Framework, Challenges, and Case Law (2024)

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the legal framework governing digital contracts in India and their enforceability under both the ICA and the IT Act. The author discusses critical case law, including Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., which upheld the validity of contracts executed via email. The research also evaluates ongoing challenges such as electronic signature authentication, cybersecurity issues, and jurisdictional concerns in cross-border transactions. The author concludes that while India possesses an underlying legal structure, it requires further development to accommodate modern security and enforcement mechanisms.

Pathak, D., & Rajpoot, L. S., Legal Impact of Technology on E-Contracts Communication in India (2018)

The researchers focus on the transformation of electronic communication in relation to offer and acceptance. The paper compares the traditional postal acceptance rule with the speed of digital communications such as email. It critically examines the interaction between the IT Act, 2000, and Sections 4 and 5 of the ICA, concerning the communication and revocation of offer and acceptance.

Conceptual Challenges to Offer and Acceptance in the Digital Age

As e-commerce, electronic communication and AI-based transactions take off, the problem is how to reconcile the old precepts with the new technological realities. The IT Act complements the ICA by conferring legal status to electronic contracts and digital signatures, whereas, the BSA provides the legal framework of how electronic records are to be proven. Collectively, these laws define the intercourse of contemporary contracting in India.

In the past the law differentiated between instantaneous and non-instantaneous communications. According to the postal rule, communication was considered complete after sending and in the case of instant communication, which was the case with the telephones, acceptance was considered complete only when it was received by the offeror as clarified by the SC[6]. Such a distinction is still pertinent in the digital age. Instant messaging or video calls have real-time communication that follow the receipt rule, whereas email is asynchronous and creates interpretive issues. The preference of courts to receipt rather than dispatch to maintain commercial certainty is a reminder that even digital communication is not a unitary category, and depends upon the medium[7].

There is a related complexity of distinguishing between an offer and invitation to offer. With the ICA, an offer is a promise of definite obligation whereas an invitation to offer is just a way of seeking responses. Traditionally, the catalogues and advertisements were considered as invitations. In e-commerce, listing on the web site is also divided into this fashion, where the offer is the order placed by the customer and acceptance is the confirmation or dispatch of the seller. The interpretation strikes a good compromise between protection of the consumer and commercial practicality, so businesses are not unfairly constrained by inaccurate information or inventory shortages.

10A of the IT Act further makes electronic contracts legally binding even though they are signed and delivered in a digital format and there are provisions of electronic signatures under § 3 and 3A[8]. It is however an enabling statute and not a code, and it is the courts that have to apply the traditional doctrines. The admissibility of e-contracts in the form of electronic records is discussed under § 65B of the IEA, where certification is needed to make the electronic records admissible[9]. Although this protects authenticity, in many instances it introduces procedural barriers.

There are also difficulties with the concern of consent. Under §s 13 and 14 of the ICA, consent must be agreement on the same subject matter and must be free of coercion, fraud or mistake. In online settings, the browse-wrap agreements, which presuppose consent in light of using the site, destroy the real consent because people do not know about the terms. Judges can borrow the principle of reasonable notice, which exists in other jurisdictions and requires companies to employ more direct methods like the use of click-wrap agreements, where the individual is required to expressly agree by clicking the “I Agree” button[10].

The other dimension is provided by AI-driven tools and blockchain-based smart contracts. Although they help improve efficiency and transparency, their use breaks the idea of consensus ad idem, as AI does not have a legal personality or intent. According to the current scholarship, AI is considered an agent, whose responsibility is assigned to the human deploying it, which stretches the traditional doctrines. In this way, although the basic coherence of Indian contract law is not lost, the principles of offer, acceptance and consent have been disturbed by the phenomenon of digitalization. The ICA offers doctrinal certainty, the IT Act legitimates electronic transactions and the IEA offers evidentiary protection[11]. New issues- such as AI autonomy and passive digital consent- require new legal solutions and law-making to ensure fairness and certainty.

The Information Technology Act, 2000: A Shift in Digital Contracting

The growth of electronic commerce has transformed how contracts are formed, executed, and enforced. These changes are reflected in the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, which was the first legislation in India to legally recognize electronic records and contracts. The Act serves as a bridge between traditional contract principles under the Indian Contract Act (ICA) and the evolving requirements of the digital economy.

1. Recognition of Electronic Contracts by Law

   • Section 10A of the IT Act validates electronically made contracts.
   • A contract is not unenforceable merely because offer, acceptance, or revocation occurred online.
   • Contracts must still comply with the Indian Contract Act — including lawful consideration, lawful object, and free consent.
   • Section 10A is an enabling provision, not an independent source of contractual obligations.

2. Digital Signature and Authentication

   • Sections 3 and 3A of the IT Act recognize digital and electronic signatures as legally valid.
   • Signatures must meet reliability standards — exclusive control by the signatory and detectability of changes.
   • Certification must be done by approved Certifying Authorities to ensure authenticity and integrity.
   • Certain sensitive documents — such as negotiable instruments (other than cheques), power-of-attorney deeds, wills, trusts, and property sale contracts — are excluded from electronic execution.

3. Assent in Online Agreements

   • Click-wrap agreements are generally enforceable as users explicitly click “I Agree.”
   • Courts require terms to be clear, readable, and accessible for review.
   • Browse-wrap agreements, where consent is implied through website use, are questionable under Section 14 of the ICA.
   • Such implied consent may be invalidated if users are unaware of terms.
   • International precedent supports enforcement if users receive reasonable notice.
   • Businesses are advised to use click-wrap formats for informed consent.

4. Proof of Electronic Records

   • The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) grants electronic records the same legal status as paper records.
   • Covers data stored on communication devices, servers, and digital media.
   • Certification requirement for secondary evidence continues (earlier under Section 65B of the IEA).
   • In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, the Supreme Court ruled that secondary evidence requires certification, but original devices verified by owners do not.
   • Emphasizes the importance of digital forensics and hashing for record authenticity

5. Jurisdictional Complexities

   • Cross-border digital transactions create complex jurisdictional challenges.
   • The IT Act supports domestic contracts but lacks provisions for international disputes.
   • Indian law treats acceptance via instantaneous communication (like email) as complete upon receipt by the offeror.
   • Absence of a unified global framework complicates recognition of foreign e-signatures and judgments.

6. New Challenges: AI and Smart Contracts

   • Artificial Intelligence (AI) and blockchain-based smart contracts pose new legal challenges.
   • AI systems can draft and execute contracts but lack legal personality and intent.
   • Smart contracts, while secure, limit negotiation and informed consent due to code-based automation.
   • AI systems may be treated as agents of human deployers for assigning contractual liability.

7. Consent in the Digital Age

   • Free consent under Sections 13 and 14 of the ICA remains fundamental in digital contracts.
   • Browse-wrap or smart contracts often limit user choice and awareness.
   • Court may apply a reasonable notice standard to ensure fairness and informed consent.

Conclusion

The IT Act, 2000, alongside judicial interpretations and reforms like the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has shaped the framework of digital contracting in India. While electronic contracts are now firmly recognized, ongoing concerns remain regarding consent, authenticity, jurisdiction, and technological neutrality. The law continues to evolve, striving to balance the efficiency of digital transactions with the timeless principles of fairness and voluntary agreement.

Procedural and Evidentiary Challenges in Indian Courts

The digital era has redefined contractual interactions, challenging traditional doctrines of offer and acceptance under the Indian Contract Act (ICA). With electronic contracts gaining prominence through the Information Technology Act, 2000, complexities arise regarding digital consent, evidentiary admissibility, and judicial interpretation, necessitating a critical examination of evolving contractual jurisprudence.

1. Admissibility of Electronic Records

   Under the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) now governing admissibility of electronic records in Indian courts, electronic records are considered as documents and are admissible as evidence without needing to produce the original device that was used to create the record, provided certain requirements are fulfilled.

   The conditions of admissibility (formerly §65B(2) of IEA) are strict. The electronic record must have been produced by a computer regularly used for lawful purposes, information regularly fed into it, proper computer operation maintained, and the record being a reproduction or derivation of such information. Critically, in the case of secondary electronic evidence (e.g., printed copies, CDs), the BSA still requires a certificate (formerly §65B(4)) by a person in a responsible official position, identifying the record, describing how it was produced, and certifying its authenticity.

   The ruling of the Supreme Court clarified that this framework is a complete code on electronic evidence and that the certificate is compulsory for secondary copies. Although original records in electronic form can be adduced with owner testimony, secondary copies must have the certificate.

2. Practical Difficulties in Obtaining Certificates

   Legal clarity notwithstanding, there are considerable practical challenges in obtaining the necessary certificates to present electronic evidence under the BSA. A major question is who should sign the certificate, and it may be difficult to certify all transactions, especially in the case of large servers or telecom providers where transactions are numerous.

   The nature of electronic documents (e.g., web pages aggregating data across various global servers) is dynamic and distributed, making it practically impossible for a single entity—the owner of the original binary expression—to certify the entire output. Additionally, the credibility of the certifier is crucial; a litigant or close relative providing such a certificate can be challenged as self-serving. Obtaining such certificates may also be costly, as multiple certificates might need to be procured by engaging third-party experts. This practical difficulty often results in time-consuming procedures.

3. Integrity and Authenticity of Digital Evidence

   The nature of digital evidence makes its integrity and authenticity central issues, but these are hard to preserve and establish. Electronic records are unstable and easily tampered with, mutilated, destroyed, edited, deleted, or fabricated even by inexperienced users. Ensuring reliability is more difficult, requiring a foolproof chain of custody detailing every person who handled the evidence, recording collection, transport, tracking, and storage.

   Forensic methods such as hashing (a digital fingerprint) are used to verify reliability by detecting any changes. The BSA, through its conditions of admissibility and requirement of certification, attempts to ensure reliability, but without adequate protection against tampering, trials relying solely on electronic evidence can result in a travesty of justice. Additional challenges arise from data storage abroad and limited digital forensic capacity.

4. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

   The BSA reclassifies electronic records, and its main purpose is to modernize the legal framework of evidence, especially concerning electronic records. It provides that electronic or digital records are to be treated as primary evidence, unlike the previous law, and significantly extends the definition of electronic records to include information stored in semiconductor memory or communication devices such as smartphones and laptops, covering emails, server logs, and voicemails.

   Although the BSA reclassifies electronic records as primary evidence, it still requires certification for admission as a document—an apparent contradiction noted by the Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2023). Another issue is the perceived lack of sufficient safeguards against tampering. The Supreme Court has previously warned that trials based solely on electronic records, without safeguards against manipulation, could lead to a travesty of justice.

   The BSA does not provide explicit methods for safeguarding electronic records during search, seizure, and investigation, though it grants judicial discretion to consult an Examiner of Electronic Evidence. The Standing Committee recommended that electronic and digital records should be handled and processed securely.

In conclusion, the BSA marks a progressive step in recognizing electronic records as primary evidence. However, procedural and evidentiary hurdles remain significant. Issues of certification, authenticity, and practical feasibility continue to obstruct justice. Strengthening safeguards, enhancing forensic capabilities, and ensuring judicial clarity are essential to securing reliability in India’s digital evidence regime.

Judicial Pronouncements and Jurisprudence Evolved in Digital Contracts

The Supreme Court of India has been pivotal in shaping digital contract jurisprudence, reconciling the Indian Contract Act (ICA) with the Information Technology (IT) Act. In Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai^[21], the Court supported the view of a judicial officer regarding the meaning of the concept of a junior partner. The Supreme Court stated that contracts formed through emails are valid even without a signed formal contract, as long as the intention to contract is present. The Court noted that a contract is not rendered invalid due to the medium used, provided the requisite elements of a contract are present.

In another case, the Supreme Court^[22] considered agreements transacted through email and WhatsApp and pointed out that such virtual communications are matters of evidence that must be proven during trial. The Court indicated that these correspondences should be read together to determine whether a concluded contract existed and emphasized that the focus must be on the substance of the intent rather than the form of communication.

The significance of consensus ad idem—the meeting of minds in contract formation—is a principle that Indian courts have consistently upheld, even in the digital era. In Rohit Pande v. Shagun Suri, the Delhi High Court held that the mode of communication is not essential in determining whether there is a contract between the parties; rather, it is the meeting of minds that is relevant.

Digital consent validation standards have developed progressively in Indian courts. In HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Kumar & Ors.^[23], the Court provided valuable insights into click-wrap enforceability, stating that such agreements are valid when there is clear and conspicuous notice, adequate time to read the terms, and affirmative manifestation of consent (i.e., clicking “I Agree”). The Court also emphasized the necessity of maintaining a written record in a durable form that can serve as evidence of consent.

Similarly, in DLF Ltd. v. Manmohan Lowe^[24], the Delhi High Court upheld a click-wrap agreement, stating that clicking on “I Agree” constituted a clear expression of consent. These judgments demonstrate that courts are willing to embrace the legal possibilities of contracting in the digital age, while maintaining a firm emphasis on voluntary and informed consent.

Indian jurisprudence regarding digital contracts continues to evolve, driven by technological advancements and judicial interpretation. In light of the Supreme Court’s judgments, a clear path toward the legal validity and enforceability of electronic contracts has emerged—so long as they comply with the basic principles of the Indian Contract Act and the procedural requirements of the IT Act and the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (BSA).

The judiciary’s adaptive role in balancing innovation and legal certainty is evident in its nuanced approach to issues such as offer and acceptance in digital communications, the distinction between an offer and an invitation to offer in e-commerce, and the developing standards of digital consent. Principles of intent and legal personality, as applied to cases involving intelligent contract negotiation and self-executable smart contracts, are expected to continue shaping future jurisprudence. The current legislative changes also signal an active approach toward modernizing the legal framework concerning electronic evidence.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Conclusion

The development of the doctrine of offer and acceptance in the electronic era of the ICA and IT Act is an interesting story of how laws change to suit technological advancements. The ICA offers guiding principles, which were conceptually challenged by the instant nature of automated digital communication. The early position on instantaneous communication by the Supreme Court in Bhagwandas established a vital foundation for digital communication.

The IT Act, 2000, is the major legislative response that authenticates electronic contracts and digital signatures. Though facilitating, it requires court interpretation of new digital cases, especially regarding click-wrap and browse-wrap arrangements. The decisions of Indian courts on click-wrap agreements are generally in favour of such agreements since they result from affirmative action and are clear in accordance with the principle of free consent. Nevertheless, passive consent in browsing agreements has serious enforceability issues because it is hard to demonstrate genuine user assent.

The validity of digital contracts is also made difficult by procedural and evidentiary issues, now governed by the BSA. Although the BSA reclassified electronic records into the category of primary evidence, it still requires secondary copies of electronic records to be certified, which remains a point of continuing ambivalence. Issues concerning digital evidence integrity require strict chain-of-custody protocols. Landmark Supreme Court rulings, such as Trimex International, have helped harmonize the ICA and IT Act by establishing that the medium of communication does not render a contract invalid as long as all vital elements are present. These judgments also emphasize the agreement of minds and the existence of clear intent. Courts have developed emerging standards of digital consent, encouraging openness and positive action in online agreements.

To summarize, the Indian legal system has undergone a tremendous transformation in the digital era through the dynamic interplay between laws and judicial understanding. Nevertheless, with ever-changing technological innovations—especially the emergence of AI and smart contracts that challenge traditional concepts of intent and legal personality—this evolution will continue. The ICA has been flexible enough to accommodate developing trends in digital interactions, but certain amendments may be needed in the future. Such amendments could provide more legal certainty, anticipate new technologies, and codify transparent standards of digital consent and machine-based contract formation. This would make e-contract laws robust, fair, and capable of addressing the complexities of contemporary digital trade while balancing commercial practicality with principles of consent, fairness, and evidentiary soundness.

Suggestions

The ICA, despite being robust and complemented by the IT Act, is stretched beyond limits by emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain, and smart contracts. These developments raise questions about traditional doctrines of offer, acceptance, and consent, necessitating specific legislative reforms.

The lack of legal personality in computers and their absence of consciousness complicate the requirement of intention to create legal relations. Although their actions are often attributed to programmers or deployers, this explanation fails to account for the autonomous nature of advanced AI. Similarly, smart contracts—self-executing agreements on blockchain—are problematic due to their irreversible nature and the potential for coding errors. Even though the IT Act acknowledges electronic records, it does not address enforceability and remedial issues of such contracts, particularly concerning rectification or dispute resolution.

Digital interactions also complicate consent. Browse-wrap agreements are often unenforceable because users may be unaware of binding conditions. This uncertainty suggests that a codified “reasonable notice” standard should be incorporated into Sections 13 and 14 of the ICA.

The IT Act largely legitimizes electronic transactions without reforming the ICA, leaving courts to interpret a 19th-century statute in 21st-century contexts. This gap is evident in the limited acceptance of electronic execution of documents, including wills. Therefore, amendments should be made to:

• Establish electronic agents and rules of attribution.
• Clarify electronic contract formation and dispatch/delivery rules.
• Define smart contract enforceability and digital consent.
• Ensure proper recognition of electronic communication and signatures.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Statutes

• The Indian Contract Act, 1872
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• The Information Technology Act, 2000

Case Law

• Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 9 SCC 1.
• Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co AIR 1966 SC 543.
• Lalman Shukla v Gauri Datt (1913) 11 ALJ 489.
• Shahfi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801.
• Trimex International FZE Ltd. Dubai v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 1.
• Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178.

Secondary Sources

Books

• Chatterjee, Souvik, E-Commerce and The Law (2nd edn, Eastern Law House 2018).
• Kamath, Nandan, Law Relating to Computers, Internet and E-commerce: A Guide to Cyberlaws and The Information Technology Act (4th edn, Universal Law Publishing 2009).
• Mulla, Dinshaw Fardunji and Sir Jack Beatson, Pollock & Mulla The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts (16th edn, LexisNexis 2020).
• Ryder, Rodney D, Guide to Cyber Laws (5th edn, LexisNexis 2016).
• Seth, Karnika, Computers, Internet and New Technology Laws (LexisNexis 2013).
• Sharma, Vakul, Information Technology: Law and Practice (5th edn, Universal Law Publishing 2017).
• Singh, Avtar, Contract and Specific Relief (12th edn, Eastern Book Company 2017).

Journal Articles

• Gupta, Aditya, ‘The Jurisprudence of Consent in Indian Digital Contract Law’ (2021) 33(2) National Law School of India Review 201.
• Prasad, Ayush, ‘From Anvar P.V. to Arjun Panditrao: The SC’s Odyssey on Electronic Evidence’ (2020) 12 SCC J-14.
• Raman, Mini, ‘Enforceability of Click-Wrap and Browse-Wrap Agreements in India’ (2018) 5(2) International Journal of Law and Management.
• Srinivas, K, ‘Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: A Critical Analysis of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act’ (2019) 61(3) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 345.
• Tiwari, Akanksha, ‘Jurisdictional Challenges in E-Contracts: An Indian Perspective’ (2017) 2(1) NUJS Law Review 115.

References:

1. Lalman Shukla V. Gauri Dutt (1913) 11 Alj 489
2. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia vs M/S. Girdharilal Parshottamdas And Co. and others 1966 AIR 543
3. Lawvs, “Legal Law Jobs | LawVs” (Lawvs – Legal Law Jobs portal in Delhi, August 5, 2023) https://lawvs.com/articles/digital-consent-and-contract-formation-a-legal-analysis-of-clickwrap-and-browsewrap-agreements-in-india
4. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908
5. Jamiu Ishola, Soliu, The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Contract Law: A Legal Analysis (July 10, 2024). No., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4891306
6. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas 1966 AIR 543
7. Nay JJ, “Law Informs Code: A Legal Informatics Approach to Aligning Artificial Intelligence with Humans” [2022] arXiv (Cornell University) https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13020
8. “E-Signing of Contract and Documents in India” (Singhania & Partners) https://singhania.in/blog/e-signing-of-contract-and-documents-in-india accessed September 1, 2025
9. Supra note 4
10. Kadian T, “Clickwrap, Browsewrap, and Negotiated SAAS Contracts: Enforceability in India” Contracts and Commercial Law – India (August 27, 2025) https://www.mondaq.com/india/contracts-and-commercial-law/1670160/clickwrap-browsewrap-and-negotiated-saas-contracts-enforceability-in-india#:~:text=Indian law recognizes electronic contracts,65B for electronic record admissibility.
11. Bajaj Finserv, “Indian Contract Law 1872: Meaning, Types & Provisions” (www.bajajfinserv.in, July 28, 2025) https://www.bajajfinserv.in/indian-contract-law-1872#:~:text=Offer and acceptance: A contract,must be fulfilled as agreed. accessed September 1, 2025
12. “Understanding E-Contracts – HSA” https://hsalegal.com/article/understanding-e-contracts/#:~:text=Some of the pertinent aspects,terms and conditions of contract. accessed September 1, 2025
13. Dalmia VP, “Law of Digital Signatures in India” Contracts and Commercial Law – India (March 20, 2024) https://www.mondaq.com/india/contracts-and-commercial-law/1441750/law-of-digital-signatures-in-india#:~:text=Section 5 of the IT,the identity of an individual.
14. Id at 13.
15. AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 180
16. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908
17. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas 1966 AIR 543
18. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908
19. Standing Committee Report Summary, The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/standing-committee-report-summary-4276#:~:text=Tampering of electronic evidence: Under,which requires a certificate authentication.
20. Id at 19.
21. Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai Vs Vedanta Aluminium Limited, India (2010) 3 SCC 1
22. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited vs Ks Infraspace Llp Limited AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 307
23. HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. MR. RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. FIRST APPEAL NO. 308/2023
24. Dlf Limited vs Manmohan Lowe & Ors 2014 AIR SCW 1857

Written By:

• Manav Kothary, first semester LLM student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
• Ms. Niharika Negi, Practising Advocate at the Hon’ble High Court and District Courts of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench.