Are Digital Wills Valid in India? Cloud Storage, Succession Law & Reform
Analysing the Execution, Attestation, and Admissibility of Digital Testamentary
Prachi Nayak
Intern
KEYWORDS: Digital will in India, electronic will, cloud storage, Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, testamentary succession, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Information Technology Act, 2000, Digital nominee DPDP Act.
Abstract and Introduction
The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, ‘the Succession Act’) was passed in a pre-digital era when testamentary disposition was a physical process, which required ink, paper and corporeal witnesses. A century later, millions of Indians put their most private personal information in Dropbox, iCloud or Google Drive, rather than steel lockers. This paper considers an issue which courts are now facing in the real time: Will a Will executed by digital signature and kept exclusively on a cloud server meet the execution and attestation requirements set by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?[1]
The core of the present paper is that as per the existing framework of statutes in India, the Will which is only in digital format and kept on cloud is not legally valid. The Succession Act requires that the testator sign the Will in their own hand and have two witnesses present.[2] The Information Technology Act, 2000 (the IT Act) and The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (the BSA 2023) recognize electronic records as evidence but will not change the substantive execution formalities provided for in the Succession Act.[3]
This paper is broken down into 5 parts; where the 1st part starts with the issue, 2nd part sets the legal framework and 3rd part analyses the major judicial precedents such as Gandhinagar (iCloud) and the recent Sunjay Kapur estate case in the Delhi High Court, Part IV critically analyses the above cases with recommendations for reform and Part V concludes with legislative recommendations to ensure its implementations.
2. Legal Framework
Understanding why a digitally stored Will fails under Indian law due to Indian Succession Act, 1925; Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 and IT Act,2000.
2.1 The Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Core Formalities
Testamentary succession of non-Hindu, non-Buddhists, non-Sikhs and non-Jains is governed by the Succession Act. The definition of a ‘Will’ in Section 2(h) is the legal declaration of the wishes of a testator with regard to his property which he wishes to have enforced after his death.[4] Section 59 states that any sound-minded person, not a minor, may make a Will.[5]
The important provision is Section 63, which provides the formalities for execution of unprivileged Wills. The formalities mentioned under this section are not arbitrary in nature, but rather prevent fraud as physical co-presence of the testator and witnesses ensures that the document signed and the document witnessed are identical; without coercion. Also, an independent human check on testamentary capacity exists at the time of execution rather than reconstruction after death. It requires the witness to see the testator sign to address substitution; the physical presence ensures that there is no undue influence and neither party can deny their signatures.
The use of a document which must be attested is barred by Section 68 of the (then) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which has been substantially repeated in the BSA 2023, if not at least one of the attesting witnesses has been called to prove its execution.[6] This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court. In the case of Dhani Ram v. Chaman Lal, an interpretative methodology is applied by the court. Supreme Court held that the conditions are alternatives and not cumulative requirements which reflects the broader principle of genuine testamentary intent rather than defeating it on technical grounds. This raises a question of whether the court is willing to read “or” separately in order to preserve a will and does the same apply to the concept of ‘presence” in section 63(c), that is digital observation? Currently, digital presence has not been interpreted and it requires physical presence, and there is no subsequent judgment that has changed this. However, the court shows willingness and focus on the purpose and object of the section rather than the exact meaning. This remains with the Parliament to implement and accommodate video-witnessed execution, supporting reformative action.
2.2 The Information Technology Act, 2000 – Electronic Signatures and Their Limits
In order to make electronic records and electronic signatures legally valid for commercial and transactional purposes, the IT Act was enacted. The 5th section recognizes electronic signatures as equal to the paper documents and the 4th section recognizes electronic records as equal to paper documents ‘wherever any law says that information or any other matter shall be in writing’.[7]
The first schedule of the IT Act (as amended) specifies categories of documents and transactions to which the Act shall not apply.[8] The exclusion of Wills from this has been legislatively intentional. When the act was enacted, electronic commerce was not fully developed, and Parliament approached the high-stakes personal documents with precaution rather than considering digital testamentary which was highly unreliable. According to Parliamentary debates and the Expert Committee Report, the rationale is a conservative one where the consequences of authentication failure were very serious to risk under an untested framework.
The exclusion reflects a precautionary stance rather than a concrete judgment which cannot be modified and does not require the Parliament to move from its deeply held principle of generalia specialibus non derogant which states that it cannot override the Succession Act but can amend it to ensure that there is a specific, organized framework for this.
2.3 The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Admissibility Does Not Equal Validity
The BSA 2023, which supersedes the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from 1 July 2024, has updated the approach towards handling electronic records in the context of the evidentiary process. The provisions in Sections 61-65 of the BSA 2023 address the admissibility of electronic records. If a responsible person issues a certificate stating how the electronic record was produced, then the electronic record is admissible in court pursuant to the provisions of Section 63 of the BSA 2023.[9]
The distinction between evidentiary admissibility and testamentary validity produces a rule of law conflict that has not yet received sufficient academic attention in India. Under the BSA 2023, a digitally stored will is authentic under section 63 and can be presented before the court as evidence. The court thoroughly examines it and determines what the deceased wished but if that document was executed digitally without physical signatures; it will not be valid under section 63 of the Succession Act. Thus, if the deceased’s wishes are presented with clarity digitally with proper clarification, it would still be disregarded because the statute invalidates it. Thus, structural incoherence can be established in the framework
2.4 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 – The Digital Nominee
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (hereafter ‘DPDP Act’) introduces the term ‘digital nominee’ which refers to a person appointed by the data principal after the data principal’s death or in the event of his or her inability to exercise certain rights over the personal data. The nominee can inspect, access, amend or request the removal of the deceased’s personal data.[10]
The proprietary rights of the underlying asset of the data covered by or related to the data must be traced according to the relevant succession law. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shakti Yezdani & Anr v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1679, Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal JJ, decided on 20th December, 2023) is a case of analogy[11]; between DPDP Act’s digital nominee and the nominee framework under company legislation is structurally done. Supreme Court held that the former one occupies an administrative position that is, they receive shares, hold them and transmit them but do not have beneficial ownership which is applicable only to the deceased.[12] In the same manner, a digital nominee is authorised to instruct data fiduciary to provide access to data, correct it or seek its erasure. The authority is custodial and procedural but does not transfer property rights over the assets. For example; a digital photograph stored in iCloud comes under this framework whose ownership is determined by succession law. The nomination gives a key to access the locker but does not authorise to own it, which requires attention by the government.[13]
3. Judicial Analysis and Case Studies
This Part examines how courts have applied, and are currently applying, the statutory provisions.
3.1 The Foundational Precedent: Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi, AIR 1954 SC 280
The earliest authoritative decision on the issue of physical presence to make an attestation to a Will is [14]Ishwardeo Narain Singh v Smt. Kamta Devi, AIR 1954 SC 280, on 25 February 1953, case established that the probate court’s jurisdiction contains two questions; whether the will was duly executed attested in accordance with section 63 and whether the testator possessed the required capacity at the time of execution. The court reasoned that the fraud-prevention value of strict formal requirements outweighs the occasional injustice of invalidating a genuine intent because it was defectively executed. The functions and criteria mentioned under the succession act cannot be reliably replicated in a video call observation. A witness watching the testator sign the document cannot verify that the document witnessed and signed is identical and a fraudulent activity can cause it to differ. The main concern is that digital document manipulation is easier than physical document forgery.
3.2 Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram (2025 INSC 18) – Clarifying Attestation Requirements
The Supreme Court in this significant ruling [Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023, decided 2 January 2025, Bench of CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol JJ] considered a question of the validity of a Will made in 1981. Under the conditions set by the High Court in their order, it was essential that the Will be signed ‘by the direction of the testator’ which the High Court held was not satisfied as it found the attesting witness did not depose that he signed the Will by the direction of the testator.[15]
This case reveals the interpretative approach to section 63. The court read the “or” in section 63 as a genuine disjunction to preserve a will that might have been declared invalid due to a technical reading of the sub-conditions. Yet, they did not apply the same type of interpretation to the concept of “presence” to accommodate digital observation. Extending “presence” to cover video-call observation would alter the physical character of the attestation structurally. The difference lies between interpretation that clarifies an existing requirement and one that substitutes a different requirement. Only Parliament can do the latter one thus, a necessity of legislative intervention.
3.3 The Gandhinagar iCloud Case: Sadhna Shaishav Shah v. Nil (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 17/2026, decided 5 May 2026)
The judgment in this Sadhna Shaishav Shah v. Nil is important not for the order given, which is a grant of Letters of Administration over an iCloud account but the procedure that led to reaching that outcome. The court characterized intangible data as “estate” within the meaning of succession act which through technical reading does not include any information of cloud storage data. The precedents it followed were Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat(1995) and State of WB v. Subodh Gopal Bose (AIR 1954 SC 92). Even though both the precedents concerned matters relating to tangible property and not to whether intangible property held on a third-party server in a foreign jurisdiction constitutes a heritable estate under Indian law. For this case, the court took into consideration the broader principle that the heritable estate includes all the properties in which the deceased had a beneficial interest at the time of death. So, the question is whether this would include iCloud data as well? It requires legislative clarity on specific formalities governing testamentary disposition of digital assets.[16]
3.4 The Sunjay Kapur Estate Dispute (Pending, Delhi High Court, 2025–2026)
The Sunjay Kapur estate dispute, currently it is pending before Delhi High Court which represents the first major litigation case in this matter. The court has admitted the digital document for forensic examination under BSA 2023, ordering inspection of devices to determine whether the document is authentic. It can only be accepted upon certification. However, the court has not determined whether the document, authenticated constitutes a valid will under section 63 of the Succession Act. BSA,2023 determines that the document wasn’t tampered with and not whether it followed the criteria or not. The outcome of the second stage will be reached when it is determined whether the document can satisfy section 63? Under the current statutory authority, a digitally executed document cannot satisfy section 63 of succession act. The court’s order in this case will be the first judicial pronouncement addressing the validity of digital testamentary. [17]
4. Critical Analysis and Evaluation
This Part analyses the above material to identify the practical problems, and advances reforms.
4.1 The Statutory Gap
As there is absence of an express prohibition on digital wills in Indian law ; this creates a gap that makes it complex. The gap operates at two distinct levels; first is section 63 of Succession Act which requires physical execution and no provision exists for digital execution as an alternative and the second is a gap in evidentiary law; where a digital document records testamentary intent but there is no statutory mechanism to translate into testamentary validity. Thus, section 63 requires an amended supervised digital execution pathway. It requires ancillary rules specifying what constitutes adequate authentication of a digital will and what chain of custody must be established for a digitally stored testamentary document to be relied upon in probate proceedings. The reform proposal can address one gap, which is; a statute permitting digital will but without any authentication standards.[18] This would generate the same litigation uncertainty that it currently faces.[19]
4.2 Statutory Conflict: The Generalia Specialibus Principle
There are two canons of statutory construction which confirm that neither the IT Act nor the BSA 2023 can displace the Succession Act’s formality requirements, that is; first, generalia specialibus non derogant which states that the IT Act is a general enabling statute for electronic transactions while the Succession Act is a specific one which governs testamentary succession. Even though both of them operate on the same subject matter, the specific one prevails. Second, expressum facit cessare tacitum which states that Parliament has expressly excluded Wills from IT Act’s operation through the first schedule; where the Parliament has itself addressed it in this manner then it leaves no room for the courts to imply an alternative. These canons reflect what the law is. They confirm the invalidity of digital wills and do not provide any kind of objection to Parliament amending it in future for including supervised digital wills.
4.3 Probate and Evidentiary Analysis: The Admissibility–Validity Distinction
The probate court’s jurisdiction is confined in a manner that bears directly on the question of digital will. Supreme Court held in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi that a probate court can only determine two questions; whether the will was duly executed in accordance with section 63 of the Succession Act and whether the testator possessed the required capacity at the time of execution.
The in rem character of a probate decree increases the constraints. A grant of probate is a judicial declaration, binding universally because the instrument before the court is the last valid will of the deceased. As its effect is universal, the court cannot exercise discretion in its favour on the grounds of genuineness. For a grant, a will needs to be according to the requirements of section 63 of the succession act and other than this, the instrument can be declared void. This is the structural reason why equitable doctrines cannot bridge the admissibility -validity gap as equity cannot be used to enforce indirectly; a document that law declares void at the start.
The Sunjay Kapur estate case operationalizes this constraint as the Delhi High Court has admitted the contested digital document under BSA, 2023. This is procedurally correct as BSA,2023, permits admission of electronic records upon certification. However, the court has reserved the question of whether the authenticated document constitutes a valid will under section 63 of Succession Act. This analysis comes to a recognition that evidentiary authenticity and testamentary validity are distinct inquiries governed by different statutes. Satisfying the first doesn’t discharge the requirements of the second. Thus on the existing statute, a digitally executed will cannot satisfy the requirements of section 63 of succession act.
4.4 Comparative Perspectives and Reform Proposals
UK: The Law Commission of England and Wales, in its consultation paper identified a few primary fraud risks associated with digital wills. First, the risk of undetected document modification after execution; second the risk of undue influence that isn’t visible in a remote setting and the risk because of lack of organized and structured storage which might create various uncertainties. The Commission’s proposed reforms were; a supervised electronic execution model which regulated the platform, video recording of the signatures given and registration of the will. These proposals would address the risks that prevents digital testamentary rather than avoiding it completely[20].
India: India shares similar concerns but there are other dimensions like; India’s high rate of family property disputes, the high rate of digital illiteracy, the absence of digital infrastructures in all the areas and the resistance among older generation towards digital will. A reform that is similar to the UK reforms, identity verification and tamper prevention storage would help if at the first instance the issues above are solved. Family Law Reforms Code 2023 of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s Model proposed that digital wills should be executed with biometric authentication, immutable storage and mandatory registration with a designated authority[21]. This framework calls for more strictness than the UK-based one. The comparative lesson is that India should not replicate any particular foreign model but a fraud prevention framework suitable for the demographics of Indian law and society.
5. Conclusion
This paper has established that a will executed digitally and stored exclusively on a cloud platform does not constitute a valid testamentary instrument under section 63 of the Succession Act. This section requires physical execution and attestation that digital wills cannot fulfil. The IT Act,2000 expressly excludes digital wills from its first schedule and the BSA,2023 admits digitally stored documents as evidence but cannot convert an inadmissible document into a valid testamentary one. Legislative intervention is necessary as the task of creating a structured digital execution pathway belongs to the Parliament. Both the Gandhinagar case and Sunjay Kapur case confirm that this gap is not just theoretical but produces legal uncertainties in high-value estate disputes.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Legislation
Indian Succession Act 1925 (Act No 39 of 1925), ss 2(h), 59, 63, 65, 68.
Information Technology Act 2000 (Act No 21 of 2000), ss 4, 5 and First Schedule.
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Act No 47 of 2023), ss 61–65.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (Act No 22 of 2023), s 14.
Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Act No 30 of 1956).
Case Law
Ishwardeo Narain Singh v Smt. Kamta Devi AIR 1954 SC 280 (Supreme Court of India, 25 February 1953).
State of WB v Subodh Gopal Bose AIR 1954 SC 92 (Supreme Court of India).
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v State of Gujarat 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 (Supreme Court of India).
Shakti Yezdani & Anr v Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1679 (Supreme Court of India, December 2023, Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal JJ).
Dhani Ram v Chaman Lal (2023 INSC) (Supreme Court of India, CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar JJ) — attesting witness requirements under Section 63/Section 68.
Gopal Krishan v Daulat Ram 2025 INSC 18 (Supreme Court of India, 2 January 2025, CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol JJ) — disjunctive interpretation of Section 63(c).
Sadhna Shaishav Shah & Anr v Nil 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Guj) 1, Civil Miscellaneous Application No 17/2026 (3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, Himanshu Choudhary J, 5 May 2026) — iCloud data as inheritable estate.
Sunjay Kapur Estate Dispute (pending, Delhi High Court, 2025–2026) — contested digital Will, forensic inspection ordered 2 March 2026, interim injunction 30 April 2026.
Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors v Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRS & Ors 2026 INSC 521 (Supreme Court of India) — non-registration does not affect Will genuineness; affirming Ishwardeo Narain Singh.
Secondary Sources
Desai & Diwanji, ‘Digital Wills in India: Understanding the Legal Vacuum and the Need for Reform'(November 2025) https://desaidiwanji.com/insights/articles/digital-wills-in-india-understanding-the-legal-vacuum-and-the-need-for-reform
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Model Family Law Reforms Code 2023 https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/model-code-on-indian-family-law-2023/
The Amikus Qriae, ‘Revolutionizing Estate Planning in India: Electronic Wills and Blockchain Technology’ (August 2025) https://theamikusqriae.com/revolutionizing-estate-planning-in-india-electronic-wills-and-blockchain-technology-2/
The Amikus Qriae, ‘Case Comment: Shakti Yezdani v Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (2023)’ (September 2024) https://theamikusqriae.com/case-comment-shakti-yezdani-v-jayanand-jayant-salgaonkar-2023/
NLIU Law Review, ‘Digital Estate Inheritance Law: The Need of the Hour’ (January 2025) https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/digital-estate-inheritance-law-a-need-of-the-hour-to-balance-the-rights-of-posthumous-privacy-and-legal-heirs/
LiveLaw, ‘Gujarat Civil Court: iCloud Data is a Digital Asset Forming Part of Deceased’s Estate Under Indian Succession Act’ (May 2026) https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gujarat-civil-court-icloud-data-digital-asset-estate-indian-succession-act-534785
LiveLaw, ‘Right to Privacy Doesn’t Survive After Death, Legal Heirs Can Administer Deceased’s Digital Estate’ (May 2026) https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gujarat-court-right-to-privacy-does-not-survive-death-legal-heirs-can-administer-deceaseds-digital-estate-534801
LiveLaw, ‘Digital Nominee vs Legal Heir Under DPDP Act’ https://www.livelaw.in/articles/digital-nominee-legal-heir-dpdp-act-521855
LawBeat, ‘Gujarat Court Recognises Deceased Man’s iCloud Data As Part of Estate, Grants Daughter Access Rights’ (June 2026) https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/gujarat-court-recognises-deceased-mans-icloud-data-as-part-of-estate-grants-daughter-access-rights-1597533
LawChakra, ‘Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Priya Kapur Over Sunjay Kapur’s Mobile Seizure in Will Dispute’ (February 2026) https://lawchakra.in/high-court/priya-kapur-sunjay-kapurs-will-dispute/
Legal Service India, ‘Digital Assets and Inheritance: The Next Frontier in Indian Succession Law’ https://www.legalserviceindia.com/Legal-Articles/digital-assets-and-inheritance-the-next-frontier-in-indian-succession-law/
iPleaders Blog, ‘Digital Wills: Legal or Illegal’ https://blog.ipleaders.in/digital-wills-legal-illegal/
The Indian Express, ‘Who Owns a Person’s Digital Data After Their Death?’ (May 2026) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/digital-data-death-inheritance-phone-data-10690792/
SCC Online Blog, ‘Digital Data Forms Part of the Deceased’s Estate'(May 2026) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/30/digital-data-forms-part-of-the-deceased-estate/
LiveLaw, ‘Dead Do Not Log Out: Juridical Recognition of Digital Estates in India’ (June 2026)https://www.livelaw.in/articles/dead-log-out-juridical-recognition-digital-estates-india-537243
Gopal Krishnan v. Daulat Ram(2025) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105871119/
Law Commission of England and Wales, ‘Making a Will’ Consultation Paper No 231 (2017).
[1] Ibid, s 63.
[2] Information Technology Act 2000 (Act No 21 of 2000), First Schedule.
[3] Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Act No 47 of 2023), ss 61–65.
[4] Indian Succession Act 1925 (Act No 39 of 1925), s 2(h).
[5] Ibid, s 59.
[6] Ibid, s 68.
[7] Ibid, ss 4–5.
[8] Ibid, First schedule
[9] Ibid, s 63 (formerly s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872).
[10] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (Act No 22 of 2023), s 14.
[11] Shakti Yezdani & Anr v Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1679 (Supreme Court of India, December 2023, Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal JJ).
[12] https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/digital-estate-inheritance-law-a-need-of-the-hour-to-balance-the-rights-of-posthumous-privacy-and-legal-heirs/
[13] LiveLaw, ‘Digital Nominee vs Legal Heir Under DPDP Act’ https://www.livelaw.in/articles/digital-nominee-legal-heir-dpdp-act-521855
[14] Ishwardeo Narain Singh v Smt Kamta Devi AIR 1954 SC 280 (Supreme Court of India, 25 February 1953).
[15] Sadhna Shaishav Shah & Anr v Nil 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Guj) 1, Civil Miscellaneous Application No 17/2026 (3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, Himanshu Choudhary J, 5 May 2026).
[16] https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gujarat-civil-court-icloud-data-digital-asset-estate-indian-succession-act-534785
[17] https://lawchakra.in/high-court/priya-kapur-sunjay-kapurs-will-dispute/
[18] Desai & Diwanji, ‘Digital Wills in India: Understanding the Legal Vacuum and the Need for Reform'(November 2025) https://desaidiwanji.com/insights/articles/digital-wills-in-india-understanding-the-legal-vacuum-and-the-need-for-reform
[19] NLIU Law Review, ‘Digital Estate Inheritance Law: The Need of the Hour’ (January 2025) https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/digital-estate-inheritance-law-a-need-of-the-hour-to-balance-the-rights-of-posthumous-privacy-and-legal-heirs/
[20] Law Commission of England and Wales, ‘Making a Will’ Consultation Paper No 231 (2017).
[21] https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/model-code-on-indian-family-law-2023/
