In short. To prove a WhatsApp chat, email, CCTV clip or other electronic record through a copy, you file the copy with a Section 63(4) BSA certificate in the Schedule format: Part A signed by the person in charge of the device and Part B by an expert, each giving the hash value. Without it the copy is usually inadmissible, unless the original device itself is produced and proved.
Most disputes now turn on something stored on a phone or a server. A loan given on a WhatsApp promise, a contract agreed by email, a threat sent on Instagram, a dashcam clip of an accident, a CCTV recording of a theft, an audio recording of a demand for dowry. The content may be clear. The problem is getting it into evidence in a form the court can rely on, and the BSA has made that a little stricter than before.
This post explains the certificate, who signs it, when it is needed and when it is not, and the mistakes that get electronic evidence thrown out. It applies to civil, criminal, commercial and family cases. For the wider practice on online offences and digital disputes, see our cyber laws page. If you are defending a criminal case built on phone or computer data, read it together with our post on bail and defence for those accused in a cyber crime case.
- The law
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, sections 57, 61, 62 and 63
- Replaced
- Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, from 1 July 2024
- Who signs
- Part A: person in charge of the device; Part B: an expert
- Must state
- Device details and hash value of the record (SHA-256, MD5 or similar)
- When filed
- With the record, at each instance it is submitted for admission
- Not needed
- When the original device is produced and proved by its owner
What is a Section 63 BSA certificate?
It is a signed statement, in the format given in the Schedule to the BSA, that identifies an electronic record, describes how the copy was produced and from what device, confirms that the device was working properly and was regularly used for this kind of information, and gives the hash value of the record. Section 63(1) says that information in an electronic record which is printed, stored or copied on optical, magnetic or semiconductor media is deemed to be a document and is admissible without producing the original, if the conditions in section 63(2) are met. The certificate under section 63(4) is how those conditions are proved.
Think of it as the bridge between the phone in your pocket and the printout in the court file. The judge cannot inspect your phone every time a chat is referred to, and the other side cannot be expected to accept a screenshot on trust. The certificate puts a responsible person and a technical person on record as vouching that the copy is what it claims to be, and the hash value lets anyone later check that the file has not been changed by even a single bit.
The certificate does not prove that the content is true. A certified WhatsApp message saying ‘I will repay you ₹8 lakh by March’ is admissible as a record of what was sent. Whether it was sent by the defendant, and what it means, is still for the court to decide on the whole evidence.
When do you need the certificate, and when not?
You need it whenever you prove an electronic record through a copy: a printout, a screenshot, a CD or pen drive, an exported chat file, a downloaded email, a copy of CCTV footage. That covers almost every case, because originals usually sit on a phone, a server or a DVR that is not going to be deposited in court.
You do not need it if you produce the original itself. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), decided under the old section 65B, held that the certificate is a condition for admitting secondary electronic evidence, but is unnecessary where the owner of a laptop, computer, tablet or mobile phone steps into the witness box and proves that the device on which the information was first stored is owned or operated by them. The same logic carries over to the BSA. The court then sees the record on the device itself.
The BSA also widens what counts as primary evidence. The Explanations to section 57 say that where an electronic record is stored simultaneously or in sequence in multiple files, each file is primary evidence; that a record produced from proper custody is primary evidence unless disputed; and that each automated storage of a record in a computer resource, including temporary files, is primary evidence. Some lawyers read these as reducing the need for a certificate. Courts have not yet settled how far that goes, so the safe practice is still to file a certificate with every copy you rely on.
The provisions that govern electronic evidence
Section 2(1)(d) and (e), BSA
‘Document’ includes electronic and digital records, and ‘evidence’ includes electronic records. Emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops or smartphones, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail messages are given as examples.
Sections 57, 61 and 62, BSA
Section 57 defines primary evidence, with Explanations on electronic records. Section 61 says an electronic or digital record cannot be refused as evidence only because it is electronic, and has the same legal effect as a paper document, subject to section 63. Section 62 says the contents of electronic records may be proved under section 63.
Section 63, BSA
Admissibility of copies of electronic records on four conditions in section 63(2), proved by a certificate under section 63(4) in the Schedule format, signed by the person in charge of the device or of the relevant activities and by an expert. It replaces section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 39, BSA and section 79A, IT Act
The opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under section 79A of the IT Act is a relevant fact when a court must form an opinion on information stored or transmitted in electronic form.
BNSS sections 94, 105 and 176(3)
Section 94 lets a court or police officer summon a document or electronic communication, including a communication device likely to contain digital evidence. Section 105 requires search and seizure to be recorded by audio-video means, preferably a mobile phone. Section 176(3) requires a forensic team to visit the scene for offences punishable with seven years or more.
Section 170, BSA
Proceedings pending on 1 July 2024 continue under the Indian Evidence Act. In those cases the certificate is still under section 65B, and the Khotkar judgment applies directly.
What changed from the Section 65B certificate?
Three things changed in practice. First, the old section 65B(4) certificate could be signed by one person holding a responsible official position in relation to the device. Section 63(4) requires two signatures: the person in charge of the computer or communication device, or of the management of the relevant activities, and an expert. Second, the certificate must now be in the Schedule format, which asks for the make, model, serial number and IMEI or other identifier of the device, and the hash value of the record with the algorithm used. Third, section 63(4) says the certificate must be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is submitted for admission.
The BSA also names communication devices alongside computers throughout, and refers to semiconductor memory, so phones, pen drives, memory cards and SSDs are expressly covered. Under section 65B there was argument about whether a phone was a ‘computer’. That argument is gone.
The practical result is that a certificate typed by a party in their lawyer's office and signed by the party alone, which was common under section 65B, now falls short. Someone with technical competence must examine the record, compute the hash and sign Part B.
Section 65B and Section 63: side by side
| Point | Section 65B, Evidence Act | Section 63, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Applies to | Proceedings pending before 1 July 2024 | Proceedings begun on or after 1 July 2024 |
| Devices named | Computer | Computer and communication device, including semiconductor memory |
| Who signs | One person in a responsible official position | Person in charge of the device or activity, and an expert |
| Format | No prescribed form | Schedule to the BSA, Part A and Part B |
| Hash value | Not required by the section | Required in both parts, with the algorithm named |
| When filed | Courts allowed it at various stages | With the record at each instance of submission |
Who signs Part A and Part B, and who counts as an expert?
Part A is filled and signed by the party producing the record, or by the person who had lawful control of the device. It states their name and address, identifies the device (computer or storage media, DVR, mobile phone, flash drive, CD or DVD, server, cloud or other), gives its make, model, colour, serial number and IMEI, UIN, MAC or cloud ID as relevant, states that the device was under their lawful control for regularly creating, receiving or storing information, confirms that it was working properly, and gives the hash value of the record. For a company's server or email system, the person in charge is usually the IT head or an officer responsible for that system.
Part B is signed by an expert, who states that they examined the record, describes the device, and gives the hash value they obtained. The BSA does not define ‘expert’ for this purpose. In criminal cases the police use forensic science laboratories and, where available, Examiners of Electronic Evidence notified under section 79A of the IT Act. In private disputes, parties use qualified digital forensic professionals. Courts look at the person's qualifications and method, so pick someone who can explain in the witness box what they did and why the hash proves the file is unchanged.
A point that comes up often in the files that reach Advocate B.K. Singh is a Part B signed by a ‘computer operator’ or the lawyer's clerk. That is easy for the other side to attack. Spend the money on a proper examiner; it is a small cost compared with losing the one piece of evidence the case depends on.
How to prepare a Section 63 certificate: step by step
Follow these in order. The aim is that anyone can later trace the copy in court back to the original device without a gap.
Identify exactly what you will rely on
List each chat, email, file or clip, with dates and times. Rely on the whole conversation or the full clip, not cut extracts, so you cannot be accused of selective editing.
Preserve the original device or account
Stop using the phone for anything that might overwrite data, keep it charged and switched on or off as advised, and do not reset it. For emails or cloud files, preserve the account and do not delete the originals after copying.
Have the expert make a forensic copy
The expert extracts or exports the data using a recognised method, ideally with a write-blocker for storage media, and computes the hash value of each file. The export method and tool should be noted.
Fill and sign Part A
The person in charge of the device fills Part A in the Schedule format: device details, lawful control, proper functioning, and the hash value. Use the same hash value the expert computed; a mismatch is fatal.
Fill and sign Part B
The expert fills Part B, describing the examination and stating the hash value obtained. Keep the expert's working notes and screenshots of the process in case they are cross-examined.
File the copy with the certificate
Attach the certificate to the printout or the storage media when you file it with the plaint, complaint, written statement or evidence affidavit. File a fresh copy of the certificate each time you submit the record at a new stage or in a new proceeding.
Keep the device available
Keep the original phone or drive safe and unchanged until the case ends. If the other side disputes the copy, the court may ask for the original or send it for forensic examination.
What to keep for common kinds of electronic evidence
Each kind of record has its own weak points. These are the things a court or the other side usually asks about.
WhatsApp and other chats
- The phone with the original chat
- Full chat export with media, not just screenshots
- Saved contact details showing the number
- Proof the number belongs to the other person (bills, earlier use, admission)
- Hash value of the export file
Emails
- The email in its original account
- Full headers of each relied-on email
- Attachments in original form
- Proof of whose email address it is
- Printouts with date and time visible
CCTV and video
- The DVR or NVR, or a copy made from it promptly
- Make, model and serial number of the recorder
- Note of any time lag on the recorder clock
- Full footage around the incident, not a short clip
- Name of the person who made the copy
Calls, recordings and records held by others
- Original recording on the device that made it
- Transcript, with the speakers identified
- Certified bank statement or printout under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act
- Request to the telecom provider or platform for records, with the date sent
- Any reply or refusal received
Are WhatsApp chats and screenshots valid evidence in court?
Yes, WhatsApp chats are admissible as electronic records, but a bare screenshot without a certificate is weak and often inadmissible. The better course is to export the full chat with media, have the export hashed, and file it with a Section 63 certificate, while keeping the phone available. Screenshots can be used alongside, for convenience, but the court should be able to trace them to the export.
Admissibility is only the first question. The other side will usually say the number was not theirs, the phone was used by someone else, or the message was edited or taken out of context. Prepare for that by collecting proof that links the number to the person: an earlier admitted message, a bank transfer to a UPI ID linked to that number, an invoice listing it, or a statement from a common contact. In a case resting on chats alone, that link is often what decides the result.
Deleted messages can sometimes be recovered by a forensic examiner, depending on the phone and how much time has passed. If the other person has deleted messages on their side, your copy is still evidence; if you deleted them, do not try to recreate them from memory or from someone else's phone without telling the court how the copy was obtained.
CCTV footage and call recordings as evidence
CCTV footage is admissible with a Section 63 certificate signed by the person in charge of the DVR (the shop owner, society manager or security head) and an expert. Most DVRs overwrite footage within a few days to a few weeks, so the first job is to get a copy made immediately, preferably in front of a witness, and to note the recorder's make, model and serial number and any difference between its clock and the real time. A copy made weeks later from a phone recording of the monitor screen is far harder to defend.
Call recordings made by a party to the call are generally admissible as evidence of what was said, subject to proof under section 63 and to the usual questions of voice identification. The original recording should stay on the device that made it; a transcript should identify the speakers and should not tidy up the words. Recordings made by tapping someone else's phone raise separate questions of legality and privacy, and should be discussed with a lawyer before they are used.
Family courts have more freedom. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act 1984 lets a family court receive any report, statement, document or information that will help it decide the dispute, whether or not it would be admissible under the general law of evidence. Chats and recordings are common in a contested divorce on grounds of cruelty, for example. That does not make certification useless there: a certified record carries more weight, and the case may later go to a court that applies the strict rules.
What if the electronic record is held by someone else?
If the record is with a bank, telecom company, platform, employer or the other party, and they will not give you a certificate, you can ask the court to summon the record and the person in charge of it. In criminal cases that is done under section 94 of the BNSS; in civil cases under Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Khotkar the Supreme Court said that a party who has asked for a certificate and been refused can apply to the court for it, and once the court has directed production, the party has done what the law requires of it.
Bank records follow their own route. Under section 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1891, a printout of entries in a bank's records must be accompanied by a certificate from the bank's officer about the printout and the system that produced it. Ask the branch for a certified statement in that form rather than downloading a PDF from net banking and printing it.
Call detail records and subscriber details are held by telecom providers and are usually obtained by the police through the provider's nodal officer, with a certificate. A private party generally cannot get another person's call records directly; you have to ask the court to direct production. Platforms such as WhatsApp, Google or Meta respond mainly to requests from law enforcement under the IT Act and their own policies, which is one more reason to keep your own copy properly.
Can the certificate be filed late?
Often yes, but do not plan on it. In Khotkar the Supreme Court said the certificate can be furnished at a later stage, so long as the trial is not over, and that in criminal trials the prosecution should supply it with the documents at the start, though the court may allow it later if this causes no unfair prejudice to the accused. Section 63(4) of the BSA, with its words ‘at each instance’, now points firmly towards filing the certificate with the record.
In commercial suits, Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it applies to commercial disputes, separately requires a party relying on electronic records to file a declaration on oath about them: who the parties to the record are, how and by whom it was produced, when it was created, stored or received, its source, and who owns and has access to the email account or computer resource. That declaration comes with the pleadings, so the groundwork must be done before the suit is filed, not at the evidence stage. Our page on the commercial courts in Delhi covers the rest of that procedure.
The cost of a late certificate is usually an adjournment, an application, a reply and a hearing, and sometimes costs. In a busy Delhi district court that can mean months. In a cheque bounce case, where a summary trial depends on quick evidence, it can derail the timetable; see our post on how a Section 138 case runs in Delhi courts.
Electronic evidence in criminal cases: what the police must do
The BNSS puts more weight on electronic evidence and on recording how it was collected. Section 105 requires the search and seizure to be recorded by audio-video means, preferably a mobile phone, and the recording to be sent to the magistrate. Section 176(3) requires a forensic team to visit the scene for offences punishable with seven years or more, and to video the process. Devices seized should be listed in a seizure memo with their identifying details, sealed, and ideally hashed or imaged at the time, before being sent to the forensic science laboratory.
The prosecution then relies on the FSL or examiner's report, extracted data and a Section 63 certificate. Under section 230 of the BNSS the accused is entitled to copies of the documents relied on, which can be supplied in electronic form. Where the electronic record is sensitive, such as intimate images, the court may allow inspection instead of handing over a copy.
When the police skip these steps, the defence has room to work. A seizure without video recording, a device sent to the lab unsealed, a hash value computed weeks after seizure, or an FSL report that does not match the seizure memo can all reduce the weight of the evidence or raise reasonable doubt. Our post on what happens after a chargesheet is filed explains when such points are raised.
How electronic evidence is challenged
The usual lines of challenge are: no certificate, or a certificate that is not in the Schedule format; a certificate signed by only one person, or by someone with no connection to the device or no expertise; hash values that do not match between Part A, Part B and the record filed; a copy that is not the complete record; a gap in custody between seizure and examination; and a lack of proof that the account or number belongs to the person it is attributed to. Each goes to admissibility, weight or both.
Objections to the mode of proof should be raised when the document is tendered in evidence, not saved for final arguments or an appeal. If the opposite side files an uncertified copy and you say nothing when it is exhibited, you may find later that the court treats the objection as waived. Ask for the objection to be recorded in the deposition.
AI-generated and edited content is now a live issue. Voice clones and face-swapped videos can look convincing. A forensic examiner can look at metadata, compression artefacts and the device's file system to give an opinion on whether a file is original. If you believe a recording or video used against you is fabricated, say so early and ask for it to be sent to an FSL or an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
A made-up example: an unpaid supply bill proved by email and WhatsApp
Here's a made-up example. A trader in Dwarka supplies goods worth ₹14 lakh to a retailer in Gurugram. The orders were placed on WhatsApp, the invoices were emailed, and the retailer acknowledged the balance in a WhatsApp voice note and in an email. No payment comes, and the trader files a commercial recovery suit after pre-institution mediation fails.
With the plaint, the trader files printouts of the emails with full headers and the WhatsApp chat export, with a transcript of the voice note. The trader signs Part A as the person in charge of the phone and the business email account. A digital forensic examiner exports the chat and the emails, computes SHA-256 hash values, and signs Part B. The Order XI declaration states who controls the email account and the phone. The phone itself is kept unused in a drawer.
The retailer's written statement says the voice note is not his. Because the original phone is preserved and the export is hashed, the trader can offer it for forensic voice comparison. The retailer also cannot easily deny the email, which came from the address printed on his own letterhead. The electronic evidence holds, and the case moves to what the retailer actually owes.
Mistakes that get electronic evidence rejected
- Filing screenshots only. A screenshot without the export, the device or a certificate is the easiest piece of evidence to exclude.
- Selling or resetting the phone. People change phones during long cases. Once the original is gone, a disputed copy is hard to defend.
- A certificate signed by the wrong person. Part B signed by a clerk or by the party itself does not meet section 63(4).
- Mismatched hash values. If the hash in the certificate does not match the file filed, the certificate defeats itself.
- Editing before filing. Cropping a chat, trimming a video or cleaning up audio, even for clarity, invites an argument of tampering. File the full record and point to the relevant part.
- Waiting too long for CCTV. Recorders overwrite footage in days. Ask the shop, society or office for a copy the same day, in writing.
- Not linking the number to the person. A perfectly certified chat with an unproved number proves little.
What to do this week if your case depends on digital evidence
- Stop deleting anything on the phone, email or cloud account involved
- Make a list of each message, email, file or clip you will rely on, with dates
- Ask in writing for CCTV footage to be preserved and copied
- Request certified bank statements in Bankers' Books Evidence Act form
- Find a qualified digital forensic examiner to prepare the export and Part B
- Collect proof that each phone number or email address belongs to the person
- Keep the original device safe and unchanged until the case ends
- Ask us for the current Schedule format of the certificate rather than using an old 65B draft
When a lawyer should look at your electronic evidence
If the case turns on a few chats or emails that the other side is unlikely to deny, careful preparation following the steps above may be enough, and your lawyer can check the certificate before filing. A lawyer becomes more useful when the electronic evidence is disputed, held by someone else, at risk of being lost, or forms the main proof in a criminal case. In those situations the order of steps, the choice of examiner and the timing of applications matter.
Advocate B.K. Singh's computer science training (MCA) is useful in exactly this kind of work: reading an FSL report, spotting a hash mismatch, or working out whether a log shows what the other side says it shows. Our firm deals with electronic evidence in cyber crime cases as well as in civil suits and family matters. If you want someone to check your certificate or your digital evidence before you file, send the details through our online enquiry form.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Section 65B and Section 63 BSA?
Section 63 of the BSA replaced section 65B of the Evidence Act for proceedings begun on or after 1 July 2024. The main differences are that the certificate now needs two signatures (the person in charge and an expert), must be in the Schedule format with hash values, and must be filed with the record each time it is submitted.
Is a Section 63 certificate needed for WhatsApp chats?
Yes, if you prove the chat through a printout, screenshot or export file. It is not needed if you produce the phone itself and prove that you own or operate it, but in practice a certified export is filed in almost every case.
Who can sign Part B of the Section 63 certificate?
Part B must be signed by an expert who examined the record. The BSA does not define the term for this purpose, so courts look at qualifications and method; a forensic laboratory, a notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence or a qualified digital forensic professional is the usual choice.
What is a hash value in the certificate?
A hash value is a fixed-length code computed from a file using an algorithm such as SHA-256 or MD5. If the file changes in any way, the hash changes, so matching hash values show that the copy in court is identical to the record examined.
Can I use a screenshot as evidence without a certificate?
Usually not as proof on its own. Courts may look at it, but if the other side objects, an uncertified screenshot is likely to be excluded. File the full export with a certificate and keep the device.
Can the Section 63 certificate be filed after the case is filed?
Courts have allowed late filing where the trial is not over and the other side is not unfairly prejudiced. It costs time and invites objections, so file it with the record wherever you can.
Does Section 63 apply to old cases filed before July 2024?
No. Proceedings pending on 1 July 2024 continue under the Indian Evidence Act, so the certificate there is under section 65B. The Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar applies directly to those cases.
Are call recordings admissible in Indian courts?
A recording made by a party to the call is generally admissible, subject to proof under section 63 and proof of the voices. Recordings obtained by tapping someone else's phone raise separate legal questions and should be checked with a lawyer first.
How do I get CCTV footage as evidence?
Ask the owner of the camera in writing, the same day if possible, to preserve and copy the footage. The person in charge of the recorder signs Part A, an expert signs Part B, and the recorder's details and any clock difference should be noted.
Do family courts need a Section 63 certificate?
Section 14 of the Family Courts Act lets family courts receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible. A certificate is still worth filing because it adds weight and the case may go to an appellate court.
Can the police use data from my seized phone against me?
Yes, if it is properly extracted, examined and proved. You are entitled to copies of what the prosecution relies on, and gaps in seizure, sealing, hashing or custody can be challenged at trial.
Where can I get the Section 63 certificate format?
The format is in the Schedule to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, with Part A for the party and Part B for the expert. Ask us for the current format rather than adapting an old section 65B draft, which will not meet the new requirements.
Written and reviewed at B.K. Singh & Associates
Advocate B.K. Singh
Founder of B.K. Singh & Associates. MCA, LL.B., LL.M., with more than twenty years of practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, district courts and tribunals across Delhi NCR. This article explains the general law as of 24 October 2026; it is not legal advice on your facts.