BSA Section 22: When a Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion or Promise Is Irrelevant (Evidence Act 24 Mapping) (2026)

Explainer · Evidence Law · BSA

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the new evidence law in force since 1 July 2024, makes a confession irrelevant in a criminal case if it was caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise from a person in authority. It replaced Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. If you still look up "Section 24 of the Evidence Act", this is the provision you now need. It is the first line of protection against a confession that was not freely made. This explainer sets out what Section 22 covers, its provisos, how it maps to the old law, and what changed. Last verified October 2026.

01Why the number changed

The rule against forced confessions sat in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since 1 July 2024, the Evidence Act is replaced by the BSA, which renumbered the code. The same rule now sits in Section 22 of the BSA, with one word added.

A note of caution on a common mix-up. Some lists tie "Section 22" to admissions. Under the BSA, admissions are dealt with in the earlier sections (Sections 15 to 21). Section 22 is specifically about when a confession is irrelevant.

02What Section 22 says

Section 22 of the BSA says a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the court thinks it was caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise. The inducement, threat, coercion or promise must come from a person in authority, relate to the charge, and be enough to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose they would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal kind.

The addition of "coercion" to the old list of inducement, threat and promise is the one textual change. Commentary treats it as putting into words what courts already did, since coercive conduct always made a confession suspect.

03The four conditions

Courts have long read this rule through four conditions, which carry over to Section 22:

• the statement must be a confession;
• it must be made by a person accused of an offence;
• it must be made to, or caused by, a person in authority; and
• it must be caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise that gives the accused a reasonable belief of a temporal gain or of avoiding a temporal harm connected to the charge.

If all four are present, the confession is irrelevant and cannot be proved against the accused.

04The provisos: when a confession comes back

The section keeps the old provisos. First, if the impression caused by the inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the court's opinion, been fully removed by the time the confession was made, the confession becomes relevant again.

Second, a confession that is otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant just because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or after a deception, or when the person was drunk, or in answer to questions the person need not have answered, or without a warning that it could be used against them.

05Old to new: Evidence Act 24 to BSA 22

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act is now Section 22 of the BSA. The only real change is the addition of the word "coercion" to the list of influences.

This is worth noting because the confession cluster was re-organised. The old Sections 25, 26 and 27 were folded into Section 23 of the BSA, with the discovery rule kept as a proviso. So the old number 25 no longer means confession to a police officer under the BSA.

06Section 22 and the sections around it

Section 22 works with the sections near it. A confession that clears Section 22 may still be barred because it was made to a police officer or in police custody, which the BSA deals with in Section 23. The rule on admissions, which are weaker than confessions and can be civil or criminal, sits earlier in the chapter.

For how admissions are treated, including that they are not conclusive, see Section 25 of the BSA. For when evidence from a former proceeding can be used later, see Section 27 of the BSA.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

Whether a confession was voluntary is fought in trial courts and High Courts every day, and the answer turns on how judges have read inducement, threat, coercion and the "fully removed" proviso on similar facts. Claw holds over 30 crore judgments, reaching Supreme Court decisions from 1950 and High Court decisions from 1990, and answers a search in under 5 seconds. It tracks cases, orders and hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, so you can pull how Section 22, or the old Section 24, has been applied and follow a live matter by party or advocate name.

Claw does not use your case documents to train its AI models. Create a free Claw account to gather confession authorities and track a live trial, and open the case search across Indian courts hub for research past this one section.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (official text of the BSA, 2023): indiacode.nic.in
• PRS Legislative Research (BSA overview and comparison): prsindia.org
• Section 22, BSA (bare text): devgan.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions