{"id":7126,"date":"2026-07-23T14:09:59","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T08:39:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/?p=7126"},"modified":"2026-07-23T18:26:42","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T12:56:42","slug":"admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-bsa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-bsa\/","title":{"rendered":"Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence Under Section 63 BSA"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA turns on a single rule: an electronic record is admissible without producing the original device, provided the conditions in Section 63(2) are met and, where the record is secondary evidence, a certificate under Section 63(4) accompanies it. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/20063\/1\/aa202347.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a> replaced <a href=\"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/15351\/1\/iea_1872.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> from 1 July 2024, and it adds a two-signatory certificate plus a mandatory hash value to the old scheme.<\/p>\n<p>This article sets out the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA: the clause-by-clause scheme, the Section 63(4) certificate, the 2026 Supreme Court ruling, the case-law arc, and how to prove each type of digital record.<\/p>\n<p>For years, otherwise-strong prosecutions and civil suits collapsed on a technicality. Call records, CCTV clips and chat exports were thrown out because they reached the court without a valid certificate, and judges had no settled rule to save them. That drift is over. The statute now hard-codes the certificate, the format sits in a Schedule, and on 22 May 2026 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the stricter regime.<\/p>\n<p>Who needs this? Advocates filing digital proof in civil and criminal trials, law students and judiciary aspirants learning the new code, and criminal lawyers who already live with WhatsApp and CCTV evidence every week. The rules changed on 1 July 2024, and the case law that governs them was rewritten again in 2026. This guide reads the section as courts now apply it.<\/p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<nav class=\"ls-toc\" aria-label=\"Table of contents\">\n<h2>Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ol class=\"ls-toc-list\">\n<li><a href=\"#h2-1\">Section 63 BSA governs the admissibility of electronic evidence in every Indian court<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-1-history\">How the law moved from the Indian Evidence Act to Section 63<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-1-scope\">Where Section 63 applies: civil suits, criminal trials and tribunals<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-2\">What does each sub-section of Section 63(1) to (5) require?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-2-1\">Section 63(1): what counts as an electronic record<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-2-2\">Section 63(2): the conditions the record must satisfy<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-2-3\">Section 63(3): records produced by multiple devices<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-2-4\">Section 63(4) and the Schedule: the certificate requirement<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-2-5\">Section 63(5): supplementary provisions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-3\">When is electronic evidence admissible under Section 63 BSA as primary or secondary evidence?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-3-primary\">Primary evidence: producing the original device<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-3-secondary\">Secondary evidence: copies, exports and the certificate trigger<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-3-auth\">Authentication and verification standards<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-4\">What must the Section 63(4) certificate contain, and who signs it?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-4-a\">Part A: the person in charge of the device<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-4-b\">Part B: the expert who independently affirms the record<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-4-nine\">The nine things a valid Section 63(4) certificate must state<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-4-failures\">Common compliance failures that get the certificate rejected<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-4-refuse\">What to do when the person in charge refuses to certify<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-5\">Why does Section 63 require a hash value, and why do courts prefer SHA-256?<\/a>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-6\">What did the Supreme Court hold about Section 63(4) in 2026?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-6-future\">What the expanded &#8220;expert&#8221; definition means for the forensics market<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-7\">Which Section 65B judgments still bind Section 63, and which are now dead law?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-7-binds\">What still binds Section 63<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-7-dead\">What is now dead law<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-8\">Is Section 65B dead, or does it still govern cases filed before 1 July 2024?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-8-transition\">The coming wave of transition-window disputes<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-9\">How does Section 63 differ from Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?<\/a>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-10\">How do you prove WhatsApp chats, emails, call recordings and CCTV under Section 63?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-10-whatsapp\">WhatsApp chats: why bare screenshots are rejected and how to export correctly<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-10-audio\">Call recordings and audio, including the consent question<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-10-email\">Email and cloud records<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-10-cctv\">CCTV footage on a CD or pen drive<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-10-banking\">Online banking and financial-fraud records<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-11\">How should electronic evidence be filed and presented in court?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-11-filing\">Filing and pre-trial disclosure: at what stage the certificate must come in<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-11-exam\">Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the certifying witness<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-11-objections\">Responding to defence objections on authenticity and certification<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-12\">Digital forensics decides whether electronic evidence survives authentication<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-12-metadata\">Metadata and timestamp verification<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-12-custody\">Device seizure and chain of custody<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-13\">The mistakes that most often get electronic evidence excluded<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-13-mistakes\">The common certificate and chain-of-custody mistakes<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-13-billable\">Why certificate hygiene is becoming a billable trial skill<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-13-gaps\">Forensic-capacity gaps and building an alternative evidence chain<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-13-appeal\">Appeal strategy when evidence is excluded<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-14\">Does Section 63 cover cloud records, cross-border data, AI and deepfakes?<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#h2-14-future\">Where the law is heading: deepfake authentication and cross-border SOPs<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#faq\">Frequently asked questions<\/a>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#references\">References<\/a>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/nav>\n\n<hr>\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-1\">Section 63 BSA governs the admissibility of electronic evidence in every Indian court<\/h2>\n<p>Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs when an electronic record can be admitted as evidence, and it applies in every Indian court, not only in criminal trials. The section treats any information contained in an electronic record, once printed, stored, recorded or copied, as a document that a court can receive without proof of the original device, so long as the statutory conditions are satisfied. That is the whole doctrine of the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA in one sentence. Everything else is detail about how you prove those conditions.<\/p>\n<p>Why does this matter so much in day-to-day practice? Because the modern case file is mostly digital. A cheque-bounce complaint rides on a WhatsApp acknowledgement, a partnership dispute turns on email, a road-accident claim needs the CCTV clip, and an assault trial leans on a bystander&#8217;s phone video. If the record does not clear Section 63, none of that reaches the judge, however true it is.<\/p>\n<p>The section defines electronic evidence broadly: information stored, received or sent in electronic form that can be retrieved and read. That covers computer files, mobile-phone data, cloud contents, surveillance footage and communication logs. It keeps the old principle that digital proof must meet the same reliability standard as physical proof, while adding technical safeguards that paper never needed.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, the change from the earlier scheme is not cosmetic. Courts now expect the party tendering the record to document the technical chain, not merely assert that a printout is genuine. A vague, general description of &#8220;how the file was taken&#8221; is exactly what gets rejected at the threshold.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-1-history\">How the law moved from the Indian Evidence Act to Section 63<\/h3>\n<p>The route from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to Section 63 runs through the IT Act. The Information Technology Act, 2000 inserted Sections 65A and 65B into the old Act, and that pair created the electronic-record certificate for the first time. For two decades, admissibility of digital evidence was a Section 65B question.<\/p>\n<p>Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was the operative provision: it let secondary electronic evidence in, on a certificate from a responsible person. The Supreme Court then spent fifteen years deciding how strict that certificate had to be, and the answer swung more than once (the full arc sits in a later section). The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 closed that chapter by repealing the 1872 Act and re-enacting the electronic-evidence rule as Section 63, effective 1 July 2024.<\/p>\n<p>What changed in substance? The certificate moved from a judge-made gloss into a statutory Schedule, the number of signatories went from one to two, and a disclosed hash value became mandatory. So the section is not a fresh invention. It is the old 65B logic, tightened and written down.<\/p>\n<!-- VISUAL: existing-ig-iea-vs-bsa (PRESERVE + relabel): the \"BSA Section 63 vs Previous Evidence Act Provisions\" scheme table sits here after this H3 -->\n\n<h3 id=\"h2-1-scope\">Where Section 63 applies: civil suits, criminal trials and tribunals<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63 applies wherever the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applies, which means civil suits, criminal trials and most tribunals, not the criminal courts alone. A commercial-suit party proving an email trail relies on the same section as a public prosecutor proving a threatening voice note. The mechanics do not change with the forum.<\/p>\n<p>The section reaches records regardless of where the data was created, stored or transmitted, provided the proceeding is within Indian jurisdiction. That territorial breadth is what lets courts handle evidence sitting on foreign servers, subject to the practical hurdles of getting it (more on cross-border records later). And courts read the requirements as mandatory, not aspirational: miss the authentication and certification steps, and the record is excluded whatever its apparent worth.<\/p>\n<p>A question practitioners raise is whether a small civil matter really needs the full Section 63 treatment. The honest answer is yes if the record is secondary evidence, because the statute draws no small-case exception. The practical reality is that trial courts apply the section unevenly, which is a risk, not a licence to cut corners.<\/p>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p>Want to make digital evidence stick instead of watching it get thrown out on a certificate defect? The <strong>Diploma in Litigation and Trial Advocacy<\/strong> by LawSikho trains you in evidence law and trial procedure across civil and criminal matters, built around the BSA as it is actually applied in court. <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/course\/diploma-in-litigation-and-trial-advocacy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Explore the Diploma \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK END -->\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-2\">What does each sub-section of Section 63(1) to (5) require?<\/h2>\n<p>Each sub-section of Section 63 does one job: 63(1) makes the electronic record admissible as a document, 63(2) sets the reliability conditions, 63(3) handles multiple devices, 63(4) commands the certificate, and 63(5) supplies interpretive glue. Read together, they take a raw file and turn it into something a judge can act on. Read separately, they tell you exactly which box a defence objection is aimed at.<\/p>\n<p>Most competitor pages describe the section as a block. Splitting it clause by clause is the fastest way to know what you must prove, so here is each sub-section in plain terms.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-2-1\">Section 63(1): what counts as an electronic record<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 says that any information contained in an electronic record, which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer or communication device, shall be deemed a document. Once it is a document, it is admissible without further proof of the original, and without producing the original device, if the later conditions are met. The sub-section is the gateway: it converts a file into a legal document.<\/p>\n<p>And the reach is deliberately wide. A server log, a phone backup, a scanned image and a database export all qualify, because the test is the form of the information, not the gadget that held it.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-2-2\">Section 63(2): the conditions the record must satisfy<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63(2) sets four conditions the record must satisfy. First, the computer or communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information by a person having lawful control over it. Second, information of that kind was regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course of activities.<\/p>\n<p>Third, the device was operating properly through the material period, and where it was not, the malfunction did not affect the accuracy of the record. Fourth, the information in the record reproduces or is derived from information fed into the device in the ordinary course. These four conditions are the substance of reliability, and a certificate exists to vouch for them.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-2-3\">Section 63(3): records produced by multiple devices<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63(3) addresses the common situation where a record is produced by a combination of computers or devices rather than a single machine. Whether the devices operated in a standalone set-up, in a network, or across different locations, the sub-section directs that they be treated as a single device for the purpose of the section. This is why a chat that travels across a phone, an app server and a backup can still be proved as one record.<\/p>\n<p>Without 63(3), a defence could argue that each hop needs its own certificate. The sub-section forecloses that.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-2-4\">Section 63(4) and the Schedule: the certificate requirement<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63(4) requires that a certificate in the form of the Schedule accompany the electronic record whenever it is tendered as secondary evidence. The certificate identifies the record and the manner of its production, gives the device particulars, and is signed by two people: the person in charge of the device and an expert. The detailed contents belong to a section of their own below, because this is where most cases are won or lost.<\/p>\n<p>For now, hold on to one point: 63(4) is the sub-section that turns a genuine file into an inadmissible one when it is skipped.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-2-5\">Section 63(5): supplementary provisions<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63(5) is the supplementary provision that fills interpretive gaps. It clarifies that information is taken to be supplied to a device if it is fed in any appropriate form, whether directly by a person or by any appropriate equipment, with or without human intervention. That matters for automated records: sensor logs, auto-generated transaction entries and system timestamps still count, even though no human typed them.<\/p>\n<p>Does Section 63 reach records held by a third party or in the cloud? The conditions in 63(2) and the interpretive help in 63(5) let such records in, though getting the certificate from a third party raises its own problems (covered later). The clause-by-clause reading is the map; the certificate is the terrain.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h2-3\">When is electronic evidence admissible under Section 63 BSA as primary or secondary evidence?<\/h2>\n<p>Electronic evidence is admissible under Section 63 BSA as primary evidence when the original record is produced, and as secondary evidence when a copy or export is tendered with the Section 63(4) certificate. That distinction decides whether you need the certificate at all, so it is the first question to settle in any file. Get it wrong, and you either over-prepare or, far worse, tender a copy with no certificate.<\/p>\n<p>The scheme prefers the original where it is available and accessible. Reality often makes that impossible: the device is seized, damaged, encrypted, or sitting on a foreign server. Section 63 anticipates this and provides the secondary-evidence route precisely so that unavailability of the original does not sink the case.<\/p>\n<!-- VISUAL: existing-ig-6-step-verification (PRESERVE): the \"6-Step Electronic Evidence Admissibility Verification\" process infographic sits here -->\n\n<h3 id=\"h2-3-primary\">Primary evidence: producing the original device<\/h3>\n<p>Primary electronic evidence is the original digital file in its native form, accessed directly from the device or system where it was created. If you produce the phone itself and the court views the message on it, that is primary evidence. Primary evidence usually needs less certification paperwork, because the court is looking at the source, but it demands stronger custody discipline, since any tampering claim now attaches to the original.<\/p>\n<p>There is a catch worth naming. Producing the original device often means surrendering a client&#8217;s working phone or a business&#8217;s live server for the duration of the trial, which few clients accept. That is why secondary evidence is the norm, not the exception.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-3-secondary\">Secondary evidence: copies, exports and the certificate trigger<\/h3>\n<p>Secondary electronic evidence covers copies, printouts, screenshots, exports and any reproduction of the original. The moment you tender secondary evidence, Section 63(4) triggers, and the certificate becomes a condition of admissibility. This is the single most litigated line in the section, and the one juniors miss most.<\/p>\n<p>A common question is whether a printout of an email is primary or secondary. It is secondary, because the original is the electronic record on the server or client, not the paper. So the certificate is required, and a printout tendered without one is routinely excluded.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-3-auth\">Authentication and verification standards<\/h3>\n<p>Authentication under Section 63 means establishing two things: that the file accurately represents the original data without alteration, and that it was obtained lawfully and relates to the matter. Technical authentication is proved through the hash value, metadata and the certificate; legal authentication is proved through witness testimony about how and when the record was collected. Courts expect both, and they expect the technical part to be explained in language a non-technical judge can follow.<\/p>\n<p>Admissibility is not the same as proof, and conflating the two is a common error. A record that clears Section 63 is admitted; its weight, and whether it proves the fact in issue, is a separate question the court decides after hearing challenges to authenticity. In practice, a well-authenticated record admitted early still has to survive cross-examination on content.<\/p>\n\n\n<figure class=\"ls-infographic-wrap\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;\">\n<div class=\"ls-ig-verification\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;max-width:800px;\">\n<style>\n.ls-ig-verification, .ls-ig-verification *, .ls-ig-verification *::before, .ls-ig-verification *::after { margin:0; padding:0; box-sizing:border-box; }\n.ls-ig-verification {\n  font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,sans-serif;\n  color:#212121; line-height:1.5; max-width:800px; margin:2rem auto;\n  background:#ffffff; border-radius:8px; overflow:hidden; box-shadow:0 2px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);\n}\n.ls-ig-verification .title-bar {\n  background:#1a237e; color:#ffffff; padding:16px 24px; font-size:1.25rem; font-weight:700; line-height:1.3;\n}\n.ls-ig-verification .subtitle { background:#eef0f8; color:#1a237e; font-size:0.85rem; padding:8px 24px; border-bottom:1px solid #dfe3f2; }\n.ls-ig-verification .content { padding:24px; }\n.ls-ig-verification .process-step {\n  display:flex; align-items:flex-start; margin-bottom:0; padding-left:20px;\n  border-left:3px solid #1a237e; padding-bottom:24px;\n}\n.ls-ig-verification .process-step:last-child { border-left-color:transparent; padding-bottom:0; }\n.ls-ig-verification .step-number {\n  flex-shrink:0; width:40px; height:40px; background:#ff6f00; color:#ffffff; border-radius:50%;\n  display:flex; align-items:center; justify-content:center; font-weight:700; font-size:1rem;\n  margin-right:16px; margin-left:-22px;\n}\n.ls-ig-verification .step-content h3 { font-size:1rem; font-weight:700; margin-bottom:4px; }\n.ls-ig-verification .step-content p { font-size:0.9rem; color:#424242; }\n.ls-ig-verification .source {\n  font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; margin-top:16px; padding-top:8px; border-top:1px solid #eeeeee;\n}\n.ls-ig-verification .watermark { text-align:right; padding:8px 16px; font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; }\n@media (max-width:900px) {\n  .ls-ig-verification .content { padding:16px; }\n  .ls-ig-verification .title-bar { font-size:1.1rem; padding:14px 16px; }\n  .ls-ig-verification .subtitle { padding:8px 16px; }\n}\n@media (max-width:600px) {\n  .ls-ig-verification .content { padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-verification .title-bar { font-size:1rem; padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-verification .step-number { width:32px; height:32px; font-size:0.85rem; margin-left:-18px; }\n  .ls-ig-verification .step-content h3 { font-size:0.95rem; }\n  .ls-ig-verification .step-content p { font-size:0.85rem; }\n}\n<\/style>\n  <div class=\"title-bar\">6-Step Electronic Evidence Admissibility Verification<\/div>\n  <div class=\"subtitle\">The compliance sequence a Section 63 record must clear before a court will act on it<\/div>\n  <div class=\"content\">\n    <div class=\"process-step\">\n      <div class=\"step-number\">1<\/div>\n      <div class=\"step-content\">\n        <h3>Source authentication<\/h3>\n        <p>Identify the original device and system that created the electronic record, and the person in lawful control of it.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"process-step\">\n      <div class=\"step-number\">2<\/div>\n      <div class=\"step-content\">\n        <h3>Integrity and hash verification<\/h3>\n        <p>Confirm the data is unaltered by disclosing the hash value (for example SHA-256), the record&#8217;s electronic fingerprint.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"process-step\">\n      <div class=\"step-number\">3<\/div>\n      <div class=\"step-content\">\n        <h3>Section 63(4) certificate<\/h3>\n        <p>Attach the two-part statutory certificate: Part A (person in charge) and Part B (expert), each stating the disclosed hash value.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"process-step\">\n      <div class=\"step-number\">4<\/div>\n      <div class=\"step-content\">\n        <h3>Chain of custody<\/h3>\n        <p>Document unbroken custody from seizure through court presentation, recording every transfer, date and handler.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"process-step\">\n      <div class=\"step-number\">5<\/div>\n      <div class=\"step-content\">\n        <h3>Relevance assessment<\/h3>\n        <p>Establish a direct connection between the electronic record and the specific charges in the case.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"process-step\">\n      <div class=\"step-number\">6<\/div>\n      <div class=\"step-content\">\n        <h3>Court authentication<\/h3>\n        <p>Obtain judicial recognition of admissibility once every prior step is documented and satisfied.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <p class=\"source\">Source: Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/p>\n  <\/div>\n  <div class=\"watermark\">lawsikho.com<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-4\">What must the Section 63(4) certificate contain, and who signs it?<\/h2>\n<p>The Section 63(4) certificate must contain the particulars of the electronic record and the device that produced it, a declaration that the device was under lawful control and working properly, and a disclosed hash value of the record, all set out in the Schedule and signed in two parts. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the certificate is no longer a single-signatory note; it is a two-part instrument. Part A is completed by the party producing the record, who is the person in lawful control of the device, and Part B by an expert. This is the biggest practical change from the old law, and the section where careful drafting earns its fee.<\/p>\n<p>The earlier scheme under Section 63&#8217;s predecessor asked for one responsible person to vouch for the record. The rule that the certificate is a complete code, mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, comes from <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/187283766\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473<\/a>, and Section 63 now writes that rule into the statute. The new Schedule splits the single certificate into a party&#8217;s declaration and an expert&#8217;s declaration, and it puts the hash value at the centre of both. Miss either part, or omit the hash, and the certificate is defective on its face.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-4-a\">Part A: the person in charge of the device<\/h3>\n<p>Part A is filled and signed by the party producing the record, who is the person in lawful control of the device or system it came from. It states that person&#8217;s identity and address, the device or digital-record source and its particulars (make, model, serial number and the IMEI, MAC or Cloud ID as applicable), a declaration that the device was under lawful control and working properly while information was regularly fed in the ordinary course, and, importantly, the hash value of the record with the algorithm used. Think of Part A as the custody-and-integrity half: who produced the record, whether the device was working, and the hash that fingerprints it.<\/p>\n<p>The signatory must have genuine, direct knowledge of the device&#8217;s operation. An administrative clerk who never touched the system cannot supply Part A, and courts reject certificates signed by people without real responsibility for the device.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-4-b\">Part B: the expert who independently affirms the record<\/h3>\n<p>Part B is filled and signed by an expert in computer science or cyber forensics. It records the expert&#8217;s identity and designation, restates the device or source the record was taken from, and independently states the same hash value and algorithm that Part A discloses, so the hash is affirmed twice, once by the party and once by the expert. Part B is the expert-authentication half: a qualified person putting their name behind the record&#8217;s integrity.<\/p>\n<p>Who qualifies as the &#8220;expert&#8221; for Part B was the open question that the 2026 Supreme Court ruling answered, and the answer is more generous than many feared (that section is next). For drafting purposes, the expert must be able to explain how the record was examined and stand behind the hash under cross-examination.<\/p>\n<p>Can Part A and Part B be signed by the same person? Only if that person genuinely holds both roles, which is rare; usually the custodian and the forensic expert are different people, and courts are alert to a single signatory wearing both hats without the qualifications for each.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-4-nine\">The nine things a valid Section 63(4) certificate must state<\/h3>\n<p>A valid Section 63(4) certificate must state the following, and a gap in any one of them is a common ground for rejection:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The name and address (residence or place of employment) of the party producing the record, in Part A.<\/li>\n<li>The device or digital-record source the record was taken from: computer or storage media, DVR, mobile, flash drive, CD\/DVD, server or cloud.<\/li>\n<li>The device particulars: make and model, colour, serial number, and the IMEI, UIN, UID, MAC or Cloud ID as applicable.<\/li>\n<li>A declaration that the device was under lawful control and working properly while information was regularly fed in the ordinary course, and that any malfunction did not affect the record&#8217;s accuracy.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the device is owned, maintained, managed or operated by the party.<\/li>\n<li>The hash value of the record and the algorithm used to obtain it (SHA-1, SHA-256, MD5 or another legally acceptable standard), stated in Part A with the hash report enclosed.<\/li>\n<li>The expert&#8217;s name, address and designation in Part B, establishing the expertise relied on.<\/li>\n<li>The device source and the same hash value, independently restated and affirmed by the expert in Part B.<\/li>\n<li>The signature, date, time in IST (24-hour format) and place for each of Part A and Part B.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<!-- VISUAL: vis-2-certificate-part-a-part-b-hash (NEW): the Part A \/ Part B + hash-band certificate walkthrough sits here -->\n\n<h3 id=\"h2-4-failures\">Common compliance failures that get the certificate rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Certificates fail for predictable reasons, and analysis of rejection patterns points to three. The first is a technical-specification gap: missing device particulars, vague make-and-model or serial-number entries, or a hash value stated without naming the algorithm or enclosing the hash report. The second is a signatory-qualification problem: Part A signed by someone without lawful control of the device, or Part B by someone whose expertise is not established to the court&#8217;s satisfaction.<\/p>\n<p>The third is an omitted or unexplained hash value, which after 2026 is fatal, because the statute and the Court both treat the hash as the integrity anchor. What experienced practitioners do is treat the certificate as a checklist to be completed before filing, not a form to be scrambled together when the defence objects.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-4-refuse\">What to do when the person in charge refuses to certify<\/h3>\n<p>When the person in charge refuses or is unable to certify, you are not without a remedy: the court can be moved to compel production of the certificate from the party or third party who controls the device. The settled position from <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/172105947\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1<\/a>, carried into Section 63 practice, is that a party who has done everything possible to obtain the certificate should not be shut out because a third party withholds it, and that the court can direct production. You apply to the court, show your genuine efforts, and seek a direction.<\/p>\n<p>This is exactly the situation with records held by banks, telecom operators and platforms, who will not volunteer a Schedule certificate. Serve them, and if they resist, ask the court to direct them. Frankly, this gets overlooked until the trial is underway, by which point the delay is costly.<\/p>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p>Assembling a clean Section 63(4) package (export, hash, Part A and Part B) is exactly the kind of skill drilled in the <strong>Diploma in Criminal Litigation and Trial Advocacy<\/strong>. You will learn how to prove WhatsApp, CCTV and call-record evidence, draft the certificate, and defend it under cross-examination. <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/course\/diploma-in-criminal-litigation-and-trial-advocacy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">See the curriculum \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK END -->\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"ls-infographic-wrap\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;\">\n<div class=\"ls-ig-certificate\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;max-width:800px;\">\n<style>\n.ls-ig-certificate, .ls-ig-certificate *, .ls-ig-certificate *::before, .ls-ig-certificate *::after { margin:0; padding:0; box-sizing:border-box; }\n.ls-ig-certificate {\n  font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,sans-serif;\n  color:#212121; line-height:1.5; max-width:800px; margin:2rem auto;\n  background:#ffffff; border-radius:8px; overflow:hidden; box-shadow:0 2px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);\n}\n.ls-ig-certificate .title-bar {\n  background:#1a237e; color:#ffffff; padding:16px 24px; font-size:1.25rem; font-weight:700; line-height:1.3;\n}\n.ls-ig-certificate .content { padding:24px; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .cards { display:flex; gap:16px; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .card { flex:1; background:#fafafa; border:1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius:8px; padding:16px; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .card-head { font-size:1rem; font-weight:700; color:#1a237e; padding-bottom:8px; margin-bottom:12px; border-bottom:2px solid #ff6f00; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .card-head span { display:block; font-size:0.8rem; font-weight:600; color:#616161; margin-top:2px; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .checklist-item { display:flex; align-items:flex-start; margin-bottom:12px; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .checklist-item:last-child { margin-bottom:0; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .check-icon {\n  flex-shrink:0; width:22px; height:22px; background:#4caf50; border-radius:50%;\n  margin-right:10px; margin-top:2px; position:relative;\n}\n.ls-ig-certificate .check-icon::after {\n  content:''; position:absolute; left:7px; top:4px; width:6px; height:11px;\n  border:solid #ffffff; border-width:0 2px 2px 0; transform:rotate(45deg);\n}\n.ls-ig-certificate .checklist-text { font-size:0.9rem; line-height:1.4; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .hash-band {\n  margin-top:18px; background:#fff8e1; border:2px solid #ff6f00; border-radius:8px;\n  padding:14px 18px; text-align:center;\n}\n.ls-ig-certificate .hash-band .hash-label { font-size:0.8rem; font-weight:700; letter-spacing:0.5px; color:#e65100; text-transform:uppercase; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .hash-band .hash-text { font-size:0.95rem; font-weight:600; color:#212121; margin-top:6px; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .hash-band .hash-text strong { color:#1a237e; }\n.ls-ig-certificate .source {\n  font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; margin-top:16px; padding-top:8px; border-top:1px solid #eeeeee;\n}\n.ls-ig-certificate .watermark { text-align:right; padding:8px 16px; font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; }\n@media (max-width:900px) {\n  .ls-ig-certificate .content { padding:16px; }\n  .ls-ig-certificate .title-bar { font-size:1.1rem; padding:14px 16px; }\n}\n@media (max-width:600px) {\n  .ls-ig-certificate .content { padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-certificate .title-bar { font-size:1rem; padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-certificate .cards { flex-direction:column; }\n  .ls-ig-certificate .checklist-text { font-size:0.85rem; }\n}\n<\/style>\n  <div class=\"title-bar\">The Section 63(4) certificate: Part A, Part B and the hash value<\/div>\n  <div class=\"content\">\n    <div class=\"cards\">\n      <div class=\"card\">\n        <div class=\"card-head\">Part A<span>To be filled by the person in charge of the device<\/span><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">Identity and official position of the person in charge<\/div><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">Device or system particulars (make, model, role in producing the record)<\/div><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">Period the device operated properly during record creation<\/div><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">The disclosed hash value of the record with its algorithm (for example SHA-256)<\/div><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">Statement that the record accurately reproduces the original data<\/div><\/div>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"card\">\n        <div class=\"card-head\">Part B<span>To be filled by the expert in computer science or cyber forensics<\/span><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">Expert&#8217;s qualification and genuine expertise (not limited to Section 79A notified examiners, per the 2026 Supreme Court ruling)<\/div><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">The disclosed hash value of the record with its algorithm (for example SHA-256), independently stated<\/div><\/div>\n        <div class=\"checklist-item\"><div class=\"check-icon\"><\/div><div class=\"checklist-text\">Confirmation that the hash verifies the integrity of the record (the electronic fingerprint)<\/div><\/div>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"hash-band\">\n      <div class=\"hash-label\">The hash value: the electronic fingerprint<\/div>\n      <div class=\"hash-text\">The SAME disclosed hash value is stated in <strong>BOTH Part A and Part B<\/strong>, not Part B alone (Pune Bar Association, 2026).<\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <p class=\"source\">Source: Section 63(4) and the Schedule, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (2026)<\/p>\n  <\/div>\n  <div class=\"watermark\">lawsikho.com<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-5\">Why does Section 63 require a hash value, and why do courts prefer SHA-256?<\/h2>\n<p>Section 63 requires a hash value because it gives the court a mathematical way to confirm that a file has not been altered between seizure and trial, and courts prefer SHA-256 because it is the current standard that is practically impossible to forge. A hash is a fixed-length string that a program calculates from a file&#8217;s contents. Change one pixel or one character, and the hash changes completely, which is why the Supreme Court described it in 2026 as an &#8220;electronic fingerprint&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Here is what that looks like in practice. When the evidence is seized or exported, a hashing algorithm is run and the value is recorded in the certificate, by the party in Part A and independently by the expert in Part B. At trial, anyone can re-run the same algorithm on the tendered copy; if the value matches, the file is unaltered, and if it differs, the file has changed.<\/p>\n<p>There are three algorithms you will hear named: MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-256. But MD5 and SHA-1 are older, and they carry known weaknesses that let two different files share a hash, which defeats the whole point. SHA-256 produces a longer value with no practical collision, so courts and forensic labs treat it as the reliable choice.<\/p>\n<p>A question that comes up on practitioner forums is whether the algorithm choice can be challenged in cross-examination. It can, and a hash recorded only in MD5 invites the argument that the integrity check is weak. In our view, the safer practice is to record a SHA-256 value from the outset and to note the algorithm expressly in the certificate.<\/p>\n<p>The first authoritative gloss on the hash requirement comes from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-4-bsa\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297<\/a>, which is worth reading closely and gets full treatment next.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h2-6\">What did the Supreme Court hold about Section 63(4) in 2026?<\/h2>\n<p>In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-4-bsa\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297<\/a>, decided on 22 May 2026, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4), described the hash value as an &#8220;electronic fingerprint&#8221;, and held that any person with genuine expertise in computer science or cyber forensics may sign Part B. This is the freshest and highest word on the section, and it settles the two questions that had been dividing the High Courts: whether the dual certificate is valid, and who counts as an expert. Both are now answered in favour of a workable, but strict, regime.<\/p>\n<p>The Court treated the expert-certification requirement as a reasonable safeguard rather than an unconstitutional burden. The reasoning is straightforward: digital records are easy to alter, the hash and the expert declaration make alteration detectable, and a safeguard that protects reliability is proportionate. So the two-signatory design survives challenge, and parties cannot argue it away.<\/p>\n<p>The most consequential holding is on the expert. The Court held that Part B is not limited to examiners notified under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/13116\/1\/it_act_2000_updated.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>. Any person with genuine expertise in computer science or cyber forensics can sign, which widens the pool well beyond the small set of government-notified examiners.<\/p>\n<p>Why does that matter on the ground? Because the notified-examiner bottleneck was a real one, with cases stalling for want of an available government examiner. And by opening Part B to qualified private experts, the Court made the certificate obtainable in ordinary matters, not just high-profile ones.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-6-future\">What the expanded &#8220;expert&#8221; definition means for the forensics market<\/h3>\n<p>The expanded definition is likely to grow the market for private cyber-forensics services, because demand for qualified Part B signatories now outstrips the notified-examiner supply. Early signals point to certification services and templated tools proliferating, and to law firms building relationships with vetted forensic practitioners. Practitioners expect High Courts to issue protocols on what &#8220;genuine expertise&#8221; must look like, since the Supreme Court set the principle but left the vetting to trial courts.<\/p>\n<p>One caution belongs here. A wider expert pool also means more room for a weak Part B, so the quality of the expert you brief will increasingly decide whether the certificate holds.<\/p>\n<!-- EXPERT-INSERT START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Practitioner note (trial advocate with digital-evidence experience):<\/strong> Since the 2026 ruling, the practical change in my chambers is who I brief to sign Part B. I no longer wait on a notified examiner for routine matters; I keep a shortlist of private cyber-forensics experts whose method I have already tested in cross. Before I let anyone sign, I ask three things: which imaging tool they used, whether they can reproduce the SHA-256 value in the witness box, and whether their report explains the extraction in plain English. If the answer to any of those is shaky, the certificate is a liability, not an asset.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- EXPERT-INSERT END -->\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-7\">Which Section 65B judgments still bind Section 63, and which are now dead law?<\/h2>\n<p>The judgments that still guide Section 63 are the ones that made the certificate mandatory, while the judgments that relaxed it are now dead law. That is the short verdict, and it matters because trial courts and opponents still cite the old cases as if all of them survived. They did not. The precedent arc runs across two decades, and knowing which case sits where tells you which citation to trust and which to resist.<\/p>\n<p>The story starts permissive and ends strict. In <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1769219\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600<\/a>, decided in 2005, the Supreme Court allowed secondary electronic evidence in without a certificate, treating the certificate as non-mandatory. That was the baseline the later cases dismantled.<\/p>\n<p>Then came <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/187283766\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473<\/a> in 2014, which held that the certificate provisions are a complete code and that a certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, overruling Navjot Sandhu on that point. A year later, <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/193239104\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178<\/a> in 2015 made best-evidence observations about withheld CCTV, but those observations on the certificate point were later held to be per incuriam. In 2018, <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/71699420\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801<\/a> diluted Anvar by saying the certificate could be relaxed where a party did not control the device, a short-lived detour.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/172105947\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1<\/a> in 2020, a three-judge Bench, reaffirmed Anvar, overruled Shafhi Mohammad, and held that courts can compel production of the certificate. That is the settled pre-BSA position, and Section 63 was drafted against it. For a companion walkthrough of the same arc, <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/electronic-evidence-under-the-bsa-2023\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">iPleaders&#8217; companion explainer on electronic evidence under the BSA<\/a> is a useful cross-read.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-7-binds\">What still binds Section 63<\/h3>\n<p>Anvar and Arjun Panditrao still guide how courts read Section 63, because Section 63 codifies exactly what those cases required: a mandatory certificate, treated as a condition precedent. When a court interprets an ambiguity in the new certificate rule, it reaches for the reasoning in Arjun Panditrao, since the statute carried that reasoning forward rather than displacing it. So the Anvar-Arjun Panditrao line is live authority on the certificate&#8217;s mandatory character.<\/p>\n<p>Is Anvar still good law after the BSA? On the certificate&#8217;s mandatory nature, yes, its logic survives in statutory form; on the precise text of the old Section 65B, the statute now governs. The distinction is between a case&#8217;s principle and its provision.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-7-dead\">What is now dead law<\/h3>\n<p>Navjot Sandhu and Shafhi Mohammad are dead law on the certificate question, and Tomaso Bruno&#8217;s 65B observations are per incuriam. Navjot Sandhu was overruled by Anvar; Shafhi Mohammad was overruled by Arjun Panditrao; Tomaso Bruno&#8217;s certificate remarks were disapproved in Arjun Panditrao. And citing any of them for the proposition that the certificate is optional is a mistake an opponent will punish.<\/p>\n<p>The significance of Navjot Sandhu today is purely historical: it explains why the statute now hard-codes the certificate, having seen what a permissive rule produced. Treat it as context, never as authority.<\/p>\n<!-- VISUAL: vis-3-case-law-timeline (NEW): the \"what still binds, what is dead law\" timeline sits here -->\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"ls-infographic-wrap\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;\">\n<div class=\"ls-ig-timeline\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;max-width:800px;\">\n<style>\n.ls-ig-timeline, .ls-ig-timeline *, .ls-ig-timeline *::before, .ls-ig-timeline *::after { margin:0; padding:0; box-sizing:border-box; }\n.ls-ig-timeline {\n  font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,sans-serif;\n  color:#212121; line-height:1.5; max-width:800px; margin:2rem auto;\n  background:#ffffff; border-radius:8px; overflow:hidden; box-shadow:0 2px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);\n}\n.ls-ig-timeline .title-bar {\n  background:#1a237e; color:#ffffff; padding:16px 24px; font-size:1.25rem; font-weight:700; line-height:1.3;\n}\n.ls-ig-timeline .legend { display:flex; flex-wrap:wrap; gap:14px; padding:12px 24px; background:#eef0f8; border-bottom:1px solid #dfe3f2; font-size:0.78rem; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .legend span { display:inline-flex; align-items:center; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .legend i { width:12px; height:12px; border-radius:3px; margin-right:6px; display:inline-block; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .content { padding:24px; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .tl-step {\n  position:relative; padding:0 0 22px 26px; border-left:3px solid #c5cae9;\n}\n.ls-ig-timeline .tl-step:last-child { border-left-color:transparent; padding-bottom:0; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .dot { position:absolute; left:-10px; top:2px; width:17px; height:17px; border-radius:50%; background:#1a237e; border:3px solid #ffffff; box-shadow:0 0 0 2px #1a237e; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .yr { font-size:0.82rem; font-weight:700; color:#ff6f00; letter-spacing:0.3px; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .case { font-size:1rem; font-weight:700; margin:2px 0 4px; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .point { font-size:0.9rem; color:#424242; margin-bottom:6px; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .chip { display:inline-block; font-size:0.72rem; font-weight:700; letter-spacing:0.4px; padding:3px 10px; border-radius:12px; text-transform:uppercase; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .chip.binds { background:#e8f5e9; color:#2e7d32; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .chip.dead { background:#eeeeee; color:#616161; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .chip.incuriam { background:#fff8e1; color:#e65100; }\n.ls-ig-timeline .source {\n  font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; margin-top:16px; padding-top:8px; border-top:1px solid #eeeeee;\n}\n.ls-ig-timeline .watermark { text-align:right; padding:8px 16px; font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; }\n@media (max-width:900px) {\n  .ls-ig-timeline .content { padding:16px; }\n  .ls-ig-timeline .title-bar { font-size:1.1rem; padding:14px 16px; }\n  .ls-ig-timeline .legend { padding:10px 16px; }\n}\n@media (max-width:600px) {\n  .ls-ig-timeline .content { padding:12px 12px 12px 8px; }\n  .ls-ig-timeline .title-bar { font-size:1rem; padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-timeline .case { font-size:0.95rem; }\n  .ls-ig-timeline .point { font-size:0.85rem; }\n}\n<\/style>\n  <div class=\"title-bar\">Electronic-evidence precedent: what still binds, what is dead law<\/div>\n  <div class=\"legend\">\n    <span><i style=\"background:#2e7d32;\"><\/i>Still binds or current law<\/span>\n    <span><i style=\"background:#9e9e9e;\"><\/i>Dead law<\/span>\n    <span><i style=\"background:#ff6f00;\"><\/i>Per incuriam<\/span>\n  <\/div>\n  <div class=\"content\">\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">2005<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">Navjot Sandhu<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">Certificate treated as non-mandatory.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip dead\">Dead law<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">2014<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">Anvar P.V.<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">Certificate mandatory; a complete code.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip binds\">Still guides<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">2015<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">Tomaso Bruno<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">CCTV best-evidence observations.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip incuriam\">Per incuriam on 65B<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">2018<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">Shafhi Mohammad<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">Diluted Anvar.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip dead\">Dead law (overruled)<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">2020<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">Arjun Panditrao Khotkar<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">Condition precedent; overruled Shafhi Mohammad.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip binds\">Still binds<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">1 Jul 2024<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">BSA in force<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">Section 63 replaces Section 65B.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip binds\">Current statute<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"tl-step\">\n      <span class=\"dot\"><\/span>\n      <div class=\"yr\">22 May 2026<\/div>\n      <div class=\"case\">Pune Bar Association<\/div>\n      <div class=\"point\">Upheld 63(4); hash is the electronic fingerprint; expanded Part B expert.<\/div>\n      <span class=\"chip binds\">Current law<\/span>\n    <\/div>\n    <p class=\"source\">Source: Supreme Court of India judgments; citations verified on Indian Kanoon and SCC OnLine<\/p>\n  <\/div>\n  <div class=\"watermark\">lawsikho.com<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-8\">Is Section 65B dead, or does it still govern cases filed before 1 July 2024?<\/h2>\n<p>Section 65B is repealed for new matters, but it still governs evidence in proceedings that were pending when the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into force on 1 July 2024, while Section 63 governs matters instituted after. The dividing line is the savings position: a repeal does not automatically wipe out the law that applied to a proceeding already under way. So a trial that opened under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 continues to be tried under Section 65B for its evidence, even as the new code runs alongside it in fresh cases.<\/p>\n<p>This produces an awkward two-track reality in trial courts through the transition years. A judge may hear a 65B certificate in the morning matter and a Section 63 certificate in the afternoon one. And many trial courts still apply &#8220;65B habits&#8221; out of familiarity, sometimes to cases that should be under Section 63, which is itself a ground of challenge.<\/p>\n<p>The savings-clause problem parallels a bigger procedural transition that criminal lawyers already know, and the reasoning maps neatly onto <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/fir-registration-bnss-vs-crpc-section-173-154-changes\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">the same BNSS-versus-CrPC transition problem<\/a> that governs which procedure code applies to a straddling prosecution.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-8-transition\">The coming wave of transition-window disputes<\/h3>\n<p>Expect satellite litigation over which law governs evidence in cases that straddle 1 July 2024, because the savings position is easy to state and hard to apply at the margins. When was a matter &#8220;instituted&#8221;? What about a fresh document produced in an old proceeding? These are the questions that will generate appeals, and most litigators are unprepared for them.<\/p>\n<p>The second-order effect is that a lawyer who can plead the transition point cleanly gains an edge. A record excluded under the wrong code is a record wrongly excluded, and that is an appealable error worth preserving. Which law applies is not a technicality here; it decides admissibility.<\/p>\n<!-- EXPERT-INSERT START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Practitioner note (trial lawyer handling pre- and post-July-2024 matters):<\/strong> My rule of thumb on a straddling file is to fix the institution date first and plead it in the very application that tenders the record. If the proceeding was pending on 1 July 2024, I tender under Section 65B and say so on the record; if it began after, I tender under Section 63 with the Schedule certificate. The mistake I see juniors make is assuming the new law applies to everything from day one and then scrambling when the court asks which code governs. Put the choice of law in writing early, and you preserve the point for appeal.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- EXPERT-INSERT END -->\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-9\">How does Section 63 differ from Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?<\/h2>\n<p>Section 63 differs from Section 65B on five points: it needs two signatories instead of one, it mandates a disclosed hash value, it widens the device scope, it prescribes a statutory Schedule format, and it treats the certificate as an accompaniment to secondary evidence in that Schedule form. The core idea is the same, an admissible copy without the original, but the safeguards are tighter. The table below is the fastest way to see the change.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Aspect<\/th>\n<th>Section 65B (Indian Evidence Act, 1872)<\/th>\n<th>Section 63 (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Signatories<\/td>\n<td>One person in a responsible official position<\/td>\n<td>Two: Part A (person in charge) and Part B (expert)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Hash value<\/td>\n<td>Not required by the provision<\/td>\n<td>Mandatory disclosed hash value (the &#8220;electronic fingerprint&#8221;)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Device scope<\/td>\n<td>Computer output<\/td>\n<td>Broader electronic records, including multiple-device output under 63(3)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Certificate format<\/td>\n<td>Shaped by judicial interpretation (Anvar \/ Arjun Panditrao)<\/td>\n<td>Prescribed statutory Schedule (Part A \/ Part B)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Filing stage<\/td>\n<td>Condition precedent; court may compel production<\/td>\n<td>Accompanies secondary electronic evidence in Schedule form<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<!-- VISUAL: vis-1-65b-vs-63-comparison (NEW): the snippet-target comparison infographic mirrors the table above and sits here -->\n\n<p>What are the three biggest changes? The move from one signatory to two, the mandatory hash value, and the shift from a judge-made certificate to a statutory Schedule. Each closes a gap the old law left open: a single signatory who could not speak to integrity, no fingerprint to detect tampering, and a format that varied by court.<\/p>\n<p>The single-versus-two-signatory change is the one that trips up practitioners migrating from the old regime. Under Section 65B, one responsible person sufficed; under Section 63, the custodian and the expert are usually different people, and a certificate with one signature where two are required is defective. So the safest habit is to plan for two signatories from the moment the evidence is collected.<\/p>\n\n\n<figure class=\"ls-infographic-wrap\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;\">\n<div class=\"ls-ig-comparison\" style=\"margin:2rem 0;max-width:800px;\">\n<style>\n.ls-ig-comparison, .ls-ig-comparison *, .ls-ig-comparison *::before, .ls-ig-comparison *::after { margin:0; padding:0; box-sizing:border-box; }\n.ls-ig-comparison {\n  font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,sans-serif;\n  color:#212121; line-height:1.5; max-width:800px; margin:2rem auto;\n  background:#ffffff; border-radius:8px; overflow:hidden; box-shadow:0 2px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);\n}\n.ls-ig-comparison .title-bar {\n  background:#1a237e; color:#ffffff; padding:16px 24px; font-size:1.25rem; font-weight:700; line-height:1.3;\n}\n.ls-ig-comparison .content { padding:24px; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .table-wrapper { width:100%; overflow-x:auto; -webkit-overflow-scrolling:touch; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .info-table { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse; margin:0; min-width:520px; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .info-table th {\n  background:#1a237e; color:#ffffff; padding:10px 12px; text-align:left; font-size:0.9rem; vertical-align:top;\n}\n.ls-ig-comparison .info-table td {\n  padding:10px 12px; border-bottom:1px solid #e0e0e0; font-size:0.9rem; vertical-align:top;\n}\n.ls-ig-comparison .info-table td:first-child { font-weight:700; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .cell-good { background:#e8f5e9 !important; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .cell-neutral { background:#fff8e1 !important; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .cell-weak { background:#f5f5f5 !important; }\n.ls-ig-comparison .source {\n  font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; margin-top:16px; padding-top:8px; border-top:1px solid #eeeeee;\n}\n.ls-ig-comparison .watermark { text-align:right; padding:8px 16px; font-size:0.75rem; color:#9e9e9e; }\n@media (max-width:900px) {\n  .ls-ig-comparison .content { padding:16px; }\n  .ls-ig-comparison .title-bar { font-size:1.1rem; padding:14px 16px; }\n}\n@media (max-width:600px) {\n  .ls-ig-comparison .content { padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-comparison .title-bar { font-size:1rem; padding:12px; }\n  .ls-ig-comparison .info-table th, .ls-ig-comparison .info-table td { padding:8px; font-size:0.8rem; }\n}\n<\/style>\n  <div class=\"title-bar\">Section 65B vs Section 63: what changed<\/div>\n  <div class=\"content\">\n    <div class=\"table-wrapper\">\n      <table class=\"info-table\">\n        <thead>\n          <tr>\n            <th>Aspect<\/th>\n            <th>Section 65B (Indian Evidence Act, 1872)<\/th>\n            <th>Section 63 (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)<\/th>\n          <\/tr>\n        <\/thead>\n        <tbody>\n          <tr>\n            <td>Signatories<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-weak\">One person in a responsible official position<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-good\">Two: Part A (person in charge) plus Part B (expert)<\/td>\n          <\/tr>\n          <tr>\n            <td>Hash value<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-weak\">Not required by the provision<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-good\">Mandatory disclosed hash value (the electronic fingerprint)<\/td>\n          <\/tr>\n          <tr>\n            <td>Device scope<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-neutral\">Computer output<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-good\">Broader electronic records, including multiple-device output (63(3))<\/td>\n          <\/tr>\n          <tr>\n            <td>Certificate format<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-neutral\">Shaped by judicial interpretation (Anvar, Arjun Panditrao)<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-good\">Prescribed statutory Schedule (Part A, Part B)<\/td>\n          <\/tr>\n          <tr>\n            <td>Filing stage<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-neutral\">Condition precedent; court may compel production<\/td>\n            <td class=\"cell-good\">Accompanies secondary electronic evidence; Schedule format<\/td>\n          <\/tr>\n        <\/tbody>\n      <\/table>\n    <\/div>\n    <p class=\"source\">Source: Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/p>\n  <\/div>\n  <div class=\"watermark\">lawsikho.com<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-10\">How do you prove WhatsApp chats, emails, call recordings and CCTV under Section 63?<\/h2>\n<p>You prove each of these the same way at the core: produce the record in a properly exported form, and accompany it with a Section 63(4) certificate that discloses the extraction method and the hash value. The differences are in how you export each type cleanly, and in the traps specific to each. This is the playbook that separates evidence that survives from evidence that collapses on a technicality.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the failure point is almost always the same across formats: a party tenders a convenient copy (a screenshot, a phone recording, a burned CD) without the export discipline and the certificate the section demands. Fix that, and most objections fall away.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-10-whatsapp\">WhatsApp chats: why bare screenshots are rejected and how to export correctly<\/h3>\n<p>Bare WhatsApp screenshots are rejected because they are secondary evidence stripped of metadata, easy to fake, and unaccompanied by a certificate. A screenshot shows text and a timestamp, but it cannot prove the message was not edited, staged in a spoofed chat, or lifted from a different number. Courts want the underlying record, not a picture of it.<\/p>\n<p>The correct method is to use WhatsApp&#8217;s own &#8220;Export chat&#8221; function, which produces a text (and optionally media) file of the conversation, and then to have that export hashed and certified. On both Android and iPhone, open the chat, use the export option, and preserve the exported file without editing it. Then obtain Part A from the phone&#8217;s custodian and Part B from the expert who imaged and hashed the export.<\/p>\n<p>A common question is whether a self-certificate for your own phone&#8217;s chats is enough. If you are the person in charge of the device, you can supply Part A for your own phone, but you still need Part B and the hash for the export to be secondary evidence in admissible form. Proving who owns the sending number is a separate step, usually done through the telecom operator&#8217;s subscriber records, since the chat alone does not establish identity. Readers who need the criminal-complaint route first should look at <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/cyber-crime-fir-india-2026-how-to-file-under-bns-section-111-online-complaint-process-legal-remedies\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">registering a cyber-crime FIR under the BNS<\/a> before worrying about trial-stage certification.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-10-audio\">Call recordings and audio, including the consent question<\/h3>\n<p>A call recording or audio file is admissible under Section 63 if it is produced in its original digital form or as a certified export, with the certificate disclosing the recording device and the hash value. The technical proof mirrors WhatsApp: export the file without re-encoding it, hash it, and certify Part A and Part B. Re-recording a call by playing it on a speaker and capturing it on another phone destroys integrity and invites rejection.<\/p>\n<p>The consent question is distinct from admissibility. A recording made without the other person&#8217;s consent may still be admissible under the evidence rules, though it raises separate privacy and lawful-collection issues that a court can weigh when deciding what weight to give it. In our view, flag the consent position early rather than letting the defence surprise you with it.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-10-email\">Email and cloud records<\/h3>\n<p>Email and cloud records are admissible under Section 63 through the same certificate route, but they add a control problem: the record often sits with a service provider, not your client. Where your client controls the mailbox, export the messages with headers intact, hash the export, and certify it. Where a provider or a foreign server holds the record, you will usually need to compel production and obtain a certificate from the provider or an expert who images the account.<\/p>\n<p>Email headers carry the routing and timestamp information that authenticates the message, so preserve them; a body-only copy is weaker. Is a cloud certificate valid across states and High Courts? Yes, the Schedule format is statutory and national, so a properly executed certificate is not confined to one court&#8217;s jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-10-cctv\">CCTV footage on a CD or pen drive<\/h3>\n<p>CCTV footage on a CD or pen drive is admissible only with a certificate; the disc is secondary evidence, and handing it up without Part A, Part B and a hash is a standard reason for exclusion. Certify the recording system&#8217;s operation through the person in charge (often the premises owner or security supervisor), record the extraction method, and hash the copied file. The best-evidence caution from <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/193239104\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P.<\/a>, where withheld footage drew adverse comment, is a reminder that courts scrutinise how CCTV reaches them.<\/p>\n<p>Proprietary CCTV formats add a wrinkle: if the footage needs special software to play, note the conversion in the certificate so the defence cannot argue the file was altered during format change.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-10-banking\">Online banking and financial-fraud records<\/h3>\n<p>Online banking and financial-fraud records are proved through the bank&#8217;s certified logs and statements, obtained from the institution with a Section 63(4) certificate, because the customer rarely controls the server. Transaction logs, authentication records and access data need the bank&#8217;s cooperation, and banks respond to court direction, not informal requests. Build the paper trail early and serve the bank formally.<\/p>\n<p>For the underlying complaint mechanics, <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/how-to-file-a-complaint-against-cyber-fraud\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">building the paper trail in a cyber-fraud complaint<\/a> is a natural companion to the trial-stage evidence work here. The practical failure in fraud matters is treating the client&#8217;s own screenshots of a banking app as sufficient; they are secondary, uncertified, and weak.<\/p>\n<!-- EXPERT-INSERT START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Practitioner note (criminal-litigation practitioner):<\/strong> The single most common WhatsApp mistake I see juniors make is walking into court with a folder of screenshots and nothing else. A screenshot is a photograph of evidence, not the evidence. The fix takes ten minutes: open the chat, use &#8220;Export chat&#8221;, hand the exported file to a forensic expert to hash and certify, and get the phone-holder to sign Part A. Do that at the start of the brief, not the night before trial, because once the phone has been used, wiped or updated, you have lost the clean export forever.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- EXPERT-INSERT END -->\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-11\">How should electronic evidence be filed and presented in court?<\/h2>\n<p>Electronic evidence should be filed with its certificate and technical documentation at the disclosure stage, presented through a witness who can lay the foundation, and defended with the hash and metadata when the authenticity objection comes. The section rewards preparation and punishes improvisation, so the sequence matters as much as the content. A record filed late, or tendered without a foundation witness, is vulnerable even when the certificate is perfect.<\/p>\n<p>Many courts still lack the equipment to view digital records comfortably, so plan the mechanics: bring the playback device, the certified copy, and a clean printout where relevant. The goal is to let the judge see the record without any doubt about what is being viewed.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-11-filing\">Filing and pre-trial disclosure: at what stage the certificate must come in<\/h3>\n<p>The certificate should accompany the electronic record when it is tendered, and the safest practice is to file it at the disclosure stage rather than spring it at trial. Courts expect advance notice of electronic evidence, including device particulars, formats and the expert who will testify, so the other side can prepare cross-examination. But late production of the certificate invites an objection that the defence had no chance to test it.<\/p>\n<p>Disclosure runs both ways: the opposing party is entitled to the certified copy and the technical material with enough detail to challenge it. For the criminal-side filing context, <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/charge-sheet-under-bnss-format-procedure-guide\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">how the charge sheet is filed under the BNSS<\/a> frames when and how digital exhibits enter the record.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-11-exam\">Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the certifying witness<\/h3>\n<p>Examination-in-chief must build the foundation before the record goes in: the witness establishes the device&#8217;s operation, the collection method, and the custody chain, and then speaks to the certificate. For Part B, the expert explains the imaging method and confirms the hash value in the box. A record tendered without this foundation is a gift to the defence.<\/p>\n<p>Cross-examination of the certifying witness targets three weak points: whether the device was working, whether the extraction could have altered the file, and whether the expert is genuinely qualified. Anticipate each, and your witness answers them in chief rather than conceding them in cross.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-11-objections\">Responding to defence objections on authenticity and certification<\/h3>\n<p>Respond to an authenticity objection with the hash comparison, and to a certification objection with the completed Schedule. If the defence says the file was altered, re-run the hash in court and show the match. And if it says the certificate is defective, point to the Part A and Part B declarations and the disclosed algorithm.<\/p>\n<p>What if the objection is that the certificate came late? Meet it by showing your disclosure record, and if the court accepts the certificate can be produced during trial, rely on the settled position that a genuine effort to certify should not defeat true evidence. Preparation is the answer to most objections; the certificate is the shield.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h2-12\">Digital forensics decides whether electronic evidence survives authentication<\/h2>\n<p>Digital forensics decides whether electronic evidence survives authentication, because the forensic record, metadata, extraction method and custody chain, is what a court examines when reliability is challenged. The certificate states the conclusions; forensics supplies the proof behind them. A lawyer who understands the forensic basics can direct the expert, present the findings, and answer the technical objection without stumbling.<\/p>\n<p>The hash is the headline forensic tool, and it has its own section above. The two forensic elements that decide the rest are metadata and chain of custody, and both are easy to lose through carelessness at collection.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-12-metadata\">Metadata and timestamp verification<\/h3>\n<p>Metadata is the data about the data: creation dates, modification history, device identifiers and software versions embedded in the file. It authenticates a record by showing when and how it was made, and it exposes tampering when the timeline does not add up. And a photo whose metadata post-dates the event it supposedly captured is a photo in trouble.<\/p>\n<p>Timestamp verification requires care, because device clocks, network time and timezone settings can disagree. So an expert reconciles the timestamps against a reliable reference before the record is relied on for a timeline. A mismatch that is explained is fine; one that is discovered in cross is damaging.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-12-custody\">Device seizure and chain of custody<\/h3>\n<p>Chain of custody is the documented history of who held the evidence, when, and why, from seizure to court. Section 63 practice demands an unbroken chain, because a gap lets the defence argue the record could have been altered while unaccounted for. Every transfer should be logged with date, time, person and purpose.<\/p>\n<p>Seizure discipline protects the chain from the first moment: isolate the device, preserve power where needed, and image it before anyone works on the original. Is a perfect chain always achievable? Not always, but a documented, honest chain with an explained gap beats an undocumented one every time.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h2-13\">The mistakes that most often get electronic evidence excluded<\/h2>\n<p>The mistakes that most often get electronic evidence excluded are a missing or defective certificate, a broken chain of custody, a screenshot tendered in place of an export, and an unqualified certifying signatory. Each is avoidable, and each is common, which is why strong cases still die on digital-evidence technicalities. The pattern is consistent across courts: the substance is fine, the procedure is not.<\/p>\n<p>Knowing the failure modes is the cheapest form of insurance, so here they are, sharpened into the checks worth running before every filing.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-13-mistakes\">The common certificate and chain-of-custody mistakes<\/h3>\n<p>The recurring certificate mistakes are omitting the hash value, using a single signatory where two are required, and vague device particulars. The recurring custody mistakes are undocumented transfers, working on the original instead of an image, and collecting the record long after the event without explaining the delay. Any one of these gives the defence a clean objection.<\/p>\n<p>Are cases really dismissed for a missing certificate? Yes, and that has been true since the certificate became mandatory; the BSA has only tightened the requirement. Treat the certificate as non-negotiable, not as a formality to complete later.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-13-billable\">Why certificate hygiene is becoming a billable trial skill<\/h3>\n<p>Certificate hygiene is becoming a distinct, billable trial skill, because the advocate who can assemble a clean Section 63(4) package reliably wins matters that opponents lose on technicalities. The second-order effect of a stricter statute is that competence in digital-evidence procedure now has market value, and clients increasingly ask for it. What experienced practitioners know is that the export-hash-certify workflow, done early, is worth more than any argument made late.<\/p>\n<p>This shift is pulling evidence-preservation competence into corporate and compliance teams too, who now need staff who can capture records to BSA standard from day one, not at trial.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-13-gaps\">Forensic-capacity gaps and building an alternative evidence chain<\/h3>\n<p>Forensic-capacity gaps are real, since not every agency or district has hash-generation tools and trained examiners readily available, and that gap can stall a certificate. When the primary electronic record faces an admissibility challenge you cannot cure in time, build an alternative chain: witness testimony about the record&#8217;s creation, corroborating physical evidence, and circumstantial proof that supports the digital record. And the section allows more than one path to establishing authenticity.<\/p>\n<p>Do investigating agencies actually have the tools to generate hashes? Unevenly, which is why planning the forensic step at the investigation stage, not the trial stage, is the practical safeguard.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-13-appeal\">Appeal strategy when evidence is excluded<\/h3>\n<p>When a trial court excludes electronic evidence, the appeal must attack the specific ground of exclusion, whether it was a certificate defect, a custody gap, or a wrong choice of law. Appellate courts focus on procedural compliance, so a complete record of your BSA steps is what makes the appeal winnable. Preserve the certificate, the disclosure history and your objections on the record at trial.<\/p>\n<p>For <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/draft-criminal-slp-using-ai\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">carrying an evidence-exclusion point up in appeal<\/a>, the drafting discipline matters as much as the merits; a precisely pleaded ground survives where a vague one is brushed aside. The lesson is to build the appeal while you try the case, not after you lose it.<\/p>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p>Advocates who can put electronic evidence on record without it collapsing win the cases their opponents lose on technicalities. The <strong>Diploma in Litigation and Trial Advocacy<\/strong> has helped hundreds of Indian lawyers build exactly this courtroom edge. <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/course\/diploma-in-litigation-and-trial-advocacy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Enrol today \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK END -->\n\n<h2 id=\"h2-14\">Does Section 63 cover cloud records, cross-border data, AI and deepfakes?<\/h2>\n<p>Section 63 covers cloud and cross-border records through its conditions and its interpretive provisions, but it does not squarely address AI-generated content or deepfakes. For cloud and foreign-server data, the section&#8217;s reliability conditions and the certificate route apply; the real hurdle is practical access, not statutory coverage. For synthetic media, the statute was written before deepfakes became a mass problem, and it has no purpose-built rule for detecting manufactured records.<\/p>\n<p>Cloud and cross-border records come in on a certificate, obtained through the provider or a compelled production, subject to mutual legal assistance where the data sits abroad. The section reaches the record; getting the record and its certificate is the work. Third-party and cloud-held records are exactly where the compel-production remedy earns its place.<\/p>\n<p>Deepfakes expose the section&#8217;s limit. A hash proves a file has not changed since it was captured, but it cannot prove the captured event was real, so a perfectly certified deepfake would still pass the integrity test. That is the gap commentators are flagging, and it is where the next round of law-making is likely to land.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"h2-14-future\">Where the law is heading: deepfake authentication and cross-border SOPs<\/h3>\n<p>The law is likely to move toward authentication standards for AI-generated content and clearer cross-border evidence protocols, because both pressures are already visible. Early signals suggest High Court protocols on forensic capacity and standard operating procedures for foreign-server data, and commentators expect guidance or amendment on synthetic media. Practitioners expect the &#8220;genuine expertise&#8221; standard for Part B to absorb some of this, as experts are asked to opine on authenticity, not just integrity.<\/p>\n<p>None of this is settled, so treat it as the direction of travel rather than current law. For now, Section 63 handles the records it was built for well, and leaves the deepfake question open.<\/p>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK START -->\n<blockquote>\n<p>Advocates who can put electronic evidence on record without it collapsing win the cases their opponents lose on technicalities. The <strong>Diploma in Litigation and Trial Advocacy<\/strong> has helped hundreds of Indian lawyers build exactly this courtroom edge. <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/course\/diploma-in-litigation-and-trial-advocacy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Enrol today \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<!-- CTA-BLOCK END -->\n\n<h2 id=\"faq\">Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n<h3>What is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63 is the provision that governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in Indian courts. It makes an electronic record admissible without producing the original device, provided the reliability conditions in Section 63(2) are met and, for secondary evidence, a certificate under Section 63(4) accompanies it. It replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from 1 July 2024.<\/p>\n<h3>What replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?<\/h3>\n<p>Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The new provision keeps the core idea of admitting an authenticated copy without the original, but it adds a two-part certificate signed by both the person in charge of the device and an expert, and it makes a disclosed hash value mandatory.<\/p>\n<h3>When did the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?<\/h3>\n<p>The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. From that date, electronic evidence in newly instituted proceedings is governed by Section 63. Matters that were pending on 1 July 2024 continue to be governed by the old Section 65B for their evidence.<\/p>\n<h3>Is the Section 63 certificate mandatory for admissibility?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, the Section 63(4) certificate is mandatory when electronic evidence is tendered as secondary evidence, such as a copy, export or screenshot. Without a valid certificate, secondary electronic evidence is generally inadmissible, however genuine it is. A certificate is not needed only when the original record is produced as primary evidence.<\/p>\n<h3>What must the Section 63(4) certificate contain?<\/h3>\n<p>The certificate must contain the device and record particulars, a declaration that the device was under lawful control and working properly, the expert&#8217;s details, and the disclosed hash value with the algorithm used and the hash report enclosed. It is signed in two parts: Part A by the party in lawful control of the device, and Part B by an expert in computer science or cyber forensics.<\/p>\n<h3>Who signs the Section 63 certificate?<\/h3>\n<p>Two people sign: Part A is signed by the person in charge of the device or system that produced the record, and Part B is signed by an expert in computer science or cyber forensics. After the 2026 Supreme Court ruling, the Part B expert need not be a Section 79A notified examiner; any person with genuine expertise can sign. The same person can sign both parts only if they genuinely hold both roles.<\/p>\n<h3>What is a hash value and why does Section 63 require it?<\/h3>\n<p>A hash value is a fixed-length string calculated from a file&#8217;s contents that changes completely if the file is altered. Section 63 requires it so a court can verify that the record has not been tampered with between seizure and trial, by re-running the algorithm and comparing values. The Supreme Court described it in 2026 as an &#8220;electronic fingerprint&#8221;.<\/p>\n<h3>When is a Section 63 certificate required, and when is it not?<\/h3>\n<p>A certificate is required whenever electronic evidence is tendered as secondary evidence, meaning any copy, export, printout or screenshot of the original. It is not required when the party produces the original record as primary evidence, directly from the device or system that created it. Because producing the original is often impractical, the certificate route is the norm.<\/p>\n<h3>Is a certificate needed if I produce the original device?<\/h3>\n<p>If you genuinely produce the original electronic record as primary evidence, the Section 63(4) certificate is not required, because the certificate exists to authenticate secondary evidence. In practice, producing the original device means surrendering it for the trial, which clients rarely accept. Most litigants therefore tender a certified export instead, which does require the certificate.<\/p>\n<h3>Are WhatsApp chats admissible as evidence in Indian courts in 2026?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, WhatsApp chats are admissible if produced correctly. Export the chat using WhatsApp&#8217;s own export function, have the exported file hashed by an expert, and accompany it with a Section 63(4) certificate covering Part A and Part B. Bare screenshots, without an export, a hash and a certificate, are routinely rejected as unreliable secondary evidence.<\/p>\n<h3>Why are WhatsApp screenshots rejected in court?<\/h3>\n<p>Screenshots are rejected because they are secondary evidence stripped of metadata, easy to fabricate or stage, and usually tendered without a certificate. A screenshot cannot prove the message was unedited, came from the claimed number, or was not lifted from a spoofed chat. Courts want the certified export and hash, not a photograph of the screen.<\/p>\n<h3>What is the difference between Section 65B and Section 63?<\/h3>\n<p>Section 65B needed one responsible signatory and did not require a hash value, and its certificate format came from case law. Section 63 requires two signatories (Part A and Part B), makes a disclosed hash value mandatory, widens the device scope, and prescribes a statutory Schedule format. The underlying idea, admitting a certified copy without the original, is the same.<\/p>\n<h3>What did Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer decide about the certificate?<\/h3>\n<p>Anvar P.V. held that the electronic-evidence certificate provisions are a complete code and that a certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence. It overruled the earlier permissive view that had allowed such evidence in without a certificate. Its principle survives in statutory form under Section 63, which codifies the mandatory certificate.<\/p>\n<h3>Did Arjun Panditrao Khotkar overrule Shafhi Mohammad?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, the three-judge Bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar overruled Shafhi Mohammad, which had wrongly diluted the certificate requirement. It reaffirmed that the certificate is a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence and held that courts can compel its production. It remains the settled pre-BSA authority that Section 63 was drafted against.<\/p>\n<h3>What did the Supreme Court hold in the 2026 Section 63(4) ruling?<\/h3>\n<p>In the 22 May 2026 ruling, a three-judge Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4), described the hash value as an &#8220;electronic fingerprint&#8221;, and held that expert certification is a reasonable safeguard. Crucially, it held that any person with genuine expertise in computer science or cyber forensics may sign Part B, not only Section 79A notified examiners. This is the freshest and highest authority on the section.<\/p>\n<h3>Is Section 65B completely dead, or does it still apply to old cases?<\/h3>\n<p>Section 65B is repealed for newly instituted matters, but it still governs the evidence in proceedings that were pending on 1 July 2024. So a trial that began under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 continues to use Section 65B for its electronic evidence, while cases begun after that date use Section 63. Which law applies turns on when the proceeding was instituted.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"references\">References<\/h2>\n<h3>Case Law<\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/187283766\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473<\/a>. AIR 2015 SC 180; decided 18 September 2014<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/172105947\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1<\/a>. Decided 14 July 2020<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-4-bsa\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297<\/a>. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 551; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 599 of 2026, decided 22 May 2026 (temporary SCC OnLine blog link pending Indian Kanoon indexing)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/71699420\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801<\/a>. Decided 30 January 2018 (overruled)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1769219\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600<\/a>. AIR 2005 SC 3820; decided 4 August 2005 (overruled on the electronic-evidence point)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/193239104\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178<\/a>. Decided 20 January 2015 (per incuriam on the Section 65B point)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h3>Statutes<\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/15351\/1\/iea_1872.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>. Sections cited (historical): 65A, 65B (repealed with effect from 1 July 2024)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/13116\/1\/it_act_2000_updated.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>. Section referenced: 79A (Central Government to notify Examiner of Electronic Evidence)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/20063\/1\/aa202347.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a>. Section cited: 63 (sub-sections 63(1) to 63(5)) and the Schedule under section 63(4)(c); in force 1 July 2024<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h3>Secondary sources<\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-4-bsa\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">SCC OnLine: Hash value is an electronic fingerprint; Section 63(4) BSA certificate requirement is valid (Supreme Court)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/top-stories\/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-s634-bsa-mandating-hash-value-disclosure-for-electronic-evidence-535950\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">LiveLaw: Supreme Court rejects challenge to S.63(4) BSA mandating hash value disclosure for electronic evidence<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<hr>\n<p>This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified legal professional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n  \"@type\": \"Article\",\n  \"headline\": \"Electronic Evidence Under Section 63 BSA: 2026 Guide\",\n  \"description\": \"Admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA needs Section 63(2) conditions and a Section 63(4) certificate, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2026.\",\n  \"author\": {\n    \"@type\": \"Organization\",\n    \"name\": \"LawSikho\",\n    \"url\": \"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\"\n  },\n  \"publisher\": {\n    \"@type\": \"Organization\",\n    \"name\": \"LawSikho\",\n    \"logo\": {\n      \"@type\": \"ImageObject\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/logo.png\"\n    }\n  },\n  \"datePublished\": \"2026-04-02\",\n  \"dateModified\": \"2026-07-22\",\n  \"mainEntityOfPage\": {\n    \"@type\": \"WebPage\",\n    \"@id\": \"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-criminal-lawyers\/\"\n  },\n  \"image\": \"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-criminal-lawyers.png\",\n  \"citation\": [\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"CreativeWork\",\n      \"name\": \"Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors.\",\n      \"identifier\": \"(2014) 10 SCC 473\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/187283766\/\",\n      \"datePublished\": \"2014-09-18\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"CreativeWork\",\n      \"name\": \"Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors.\",\n      \"identifier\": \"(2020) 7 SCC 1\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/172105947\/\",\n      \"datePublished\": \"2020-07-14\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"CreativeWork\",\n      \"name\": \"Pune Bar Association v. Union of India\",\n      \"identifier\": \"2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-under-section-63-4-bsa\/\",\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-05-22\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"CreativeWork\",\n      \"name\": \"Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh\",\n      \"identifier\": \"(2018) 2 SCC 801\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/71699420\/\",\n      \"datePublished\": \"2018-01-30\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"CreativeWork\",\n      \"name\": \"State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru\",\n      \"identifier\": \"(2005) 11 SCC 600\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1769219\/\",\n      \"datePublished\": \"2005-08-04\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"CreativeWork\",\n      \"name\": \"Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P.\",\n      \"identifier\": \"(2015) 7 SCC 178\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/193239104\/\",\n      \"datePublished\": \"2015-01-20\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Legislation\",\n      \"name\": \"Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/20063\/1\/aa202347.pdf\",\n      \"legislationJurisdiction\": \"IN\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Legislation\",\n      \"name\": \"Indian Evidence Act, 1872\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/15351\/1\/iea_1872.pdf\",\n      \"legislationJurisdiction\": \"IN\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Legislation\",\n      \"name\": \"Information Technology Act, 2000\",\n      \"url\": \"https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/13116\/1\/it_act_2000_updated.pdf\",\n      \"legislationJurisdiction\": \"IN\"\n    }\n  ]\n}\n<\/script>\n\n\n\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n  \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n  \"mainEntity\": [\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What is Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Section 63 is the provision that governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in Indian courts. It makes an electronic record admissible without producing the original device, provided the reliability conditions in Section 63(2) are met and, for secondary evidence, a certificate under Section 63(4) accompanies it. It replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from 1 July 2024.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The new provision keeps the core idea of admitting an authenticated copy without the original, but it adds a two-part certificate signed by both the person in charge of the device and an expert, and it makes a disclosed hash value mandatory.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"When did the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. From that date, electronic evidence in newly instituted proceedings is governed by Section 63. Matters that were pending on 1 July 2024 continue to be governed by the old Section 65B for their evidence.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Is the Section 63 certificate mandatory for admissibility?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Yes, the Section 63(4) certificate is mandatory when electronic evidence is tendered as secondary evidence, such as a copy, export or screenshot. Without a valid certificate, secondary electronic evidence is generally inadmissible, however genuine it is. A certificate is not needed only when the original record is produced as primary evidence.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What must the Section 63(4) certificate contain?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"The certificate must contain the device and record particulars, a declaration that the device was under lawful control and working properly, the expert's details, and the disclosed hash value with the algorithm used and the hash report enclosed. It is signed in two parts: Part A by the party in lawful control of the device, and Part B by an expert in computer science or cyber forensics.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Who signs the Section 63 certificate?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Two people sign: Part A is signed by the person in charge of the device or system that produced the record, and Part B is signed by an expert in computer science or cyber forensics. After the 2026 Supreme Court ruling, the Part B expert need not be a Section 79A notified examiner; any person with genuine expertise can sign. The same person can sign both parts only if they genuinely hold both roles.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What is a hash value and why does Section 63 require it?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"A hash value is a fixed-length string calculated from a file's contents that changes completely if the file is altered. Section 63 requires it so a court can verify that the record has not been tampered with between seizure and trial, by re-running the algorithm and comparing values. The Supreme Court described it in 2026 as an \\\"electronic fingerprint\\\".\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"When is a Section 63 certificate required, and when is it not?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"A certificate is required whenever electronic evidence is tendered as secondary evidence, meaning any copy, export, printout or screenshot of the original. It is not required when the party produces the original record as primary evidence, directly from the device or system that created it. Because producing the original is often impractical, the certificate route is the norm.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Is a certificate needed if I produce the original device?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"If you genuinely produce the original electronic record as primary evidence, the Section 63(4) certificate is not required, because the certificate exists to authenticate secondary evidence. In practice, producing the original device means surrendering it for the trial, which clients rarely accept. Most litigants therefore tender a certified export instead, which does require the certificate.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Are WhatsApp chats admissible as evidence in Indian courts in 2026?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Yes, WhatsApp chats are admissible if produced correctly. Export the chat using WhatsApp's own export function, have the exported file hashed by an expert, and accompany it with a Section 63(4) certificate covering Part A and Part B. Bare screenshots, without an export, a hash and a certificate, are routinely rejected as unreliable secondary evidence.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Why are WhatsApp screenshots rejected in court?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Screenshots are rejected because they are secondary evidence stripped of metadata, easy to fabricate or stage, and usually tendered without a certificate. A screenshot cannot prove the message was unedited, came from the claimed number, or was not lifted from a spoofed chat. Courts want the certified export and hash, not a photograph of the screen.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What is the difference between Section 65B and Section 63?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Section 65B needed one responsible signatory and did not require a hash value, and its certificate format came from case law. Section 63 requires two signatories (Part A and Part B), makes a disclosed hash value mandatory, widens the device scope, and prescribes a statutory Schedule format. The underlying idea, admitting a certified copy without the original, is the same.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What did Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer decide about the certificate?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Anvar P.V. held that the electronic-evidence certificate provisions are a complete code and that a certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence. It overruled the earlier permissive view that had allowed such evidence in without a certificate. Its principle survives in statutory form under Section 63, which codifies the mandatory certificate.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Did Arjun Panditrao Khotkar overrule Shafhi Mohammad?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Yes, the three-judge Bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar overruled Shafhi Mohammad, which had wrongly diluted the certificate requirement. It reaffirmed that the certificate is a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence and held that courts can compel its production. It remains the settled pre-BSA authority that Section 63 was drafted against.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What did the Supreme Court hold in the 2026 Section 63(4) ruling?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"In the 22 May 2026 ruling, a three-judge Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4), described the hash value as an \\\"electronic fingerprint\\\", and held that expert certification is a reasonable safeguard. Crucially, it held that any person with genuine expertise in computer science or cyber forensics may sign Part B, not only Section 79A notified examiners. This is the freshest and highest authority on the section.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Is Section 65B completely dead, or does it still apply to old cases?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Section 65B is repealed for newly instituted matters, but it still governs the evidence in proceedings that were pending on 1 July 2024. So a trial that began under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 continues to use Section 65B for its electronic evidence, while cases begun after that date use Section 63. Which law applies turns on when the proceeding was instituted.\"\n      }\n    }\n  ]\n}\n<\/script>\n\n\n<style>.ls-cta-br{display:none;}@media(max-width:768px){#ls-floating-cta{padding:8px 12px !important;}#ls-floating-cta .ls-wrap{flex-direction:column !important;align-items:center !important;gap:8px !important;}#ls-floating-cta a{font-size:11px !important;padding:8px 16px !important;white-space:normal !important;text-align:center !important;max-width:90vw !important;}.ls-cta-br{display:block !important;}}<\/style><div id=\"ls-floating-cta\" style=\"position:fixed;bottom:0;left:0;right:0;z-index:9999;background:#0f0f0f;border-top:3px solid #E8382D;padding:12px 20px;box-shadow:0 -4px 20px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);\"><div class=\"ls-wrap\" style=\"display:flex;align-items:center;justify-content:center;gap:24px;\"><div style=\"display:flex;align-items:center;gap:10px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/growthx.lawsikho.com\/f\/google-community-judiciary-dossier-10-july?p_source=jud_blog_ls&#038;p_cta=jud-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence\" onclick=\"gtag(&#039;event&#039;,&#039;cta_click&#039;,{send_to:&#039;G-3XDT1KHB05&#039;,p_source:&#039;jud_blog_ls&#039;,p_cta:&#039;jud-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence&#039;});\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"display:inline-block;background:#E8382D;color:#fff;padding:11px 20px;border-radius:7px;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;text-decoration:none;white-space:nowrap;\">Crack the judiciary exam \u2014<br class=\"ls-cta-br\"> 7-day crash course, Rs. 100 \u2192<\/a><button onclick=\"document.getElementById('ls-floating-cta').style.display='none'\" style=\"background:none;border:none;color:#555;font-size:18px;cursor:pointer;padding:4px;line-height:1;position:absolute;right:16px;\">\u2715<\/button><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 63 BSA needs Section 63(2) conditions and a Section 63(4) certificate, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":7127,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2396],"tags":[2398,2397,2402,2400,2401,2399],"class_list":["post-7126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam","tag-2026-supreme-court-section-63-ruling","tag-hash-value-electronic-evidence","tag-primary-vs-secondary-electronic-evidence","tag-section-634-certificate","tag-section-65b-vs-section-63","tag-whatsapp-evidence-bsa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7126"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7126\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7136,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7126\/revisions\/7136"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7127"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsikho.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}