Yes, electronic evidence can be challenged in a Delhi criminal case. Common grounds include a missing or defective certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, broken chain of custody, signs of tampering or hash mismatch, and improper forensic collection procedure — each of which can render the evidence inadmissible or weaken its reliability.

QUICK ANSWER BOX

• Yes, electronic evidence — CCTV footage, CDRs (call detail records), WhatsApp chats, emails, forensic disk images — can be legally challenged in a Delhi criminal case.
• Main legal basis: Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and governs admissibility of electronic records.
• Most common challenge: absence or defect in the mandatory certificate authenticating the electronic record — this alone can render it inadmissible.
• Other grounds: broken or undocumented chain of custody, evidence of tampering (hash value mismatch), improper seizure/collection procedure, and an unqualified or improperly cross-examined forensic expert.
• Timing matters: an objection to admissibility on certificate/technical grounds should generally be raised at the time the evidence is tendered, not after it has already been taken on record.
• Where this plays out: trial courts across Delhi's district court complexes (Tis Hazari, Patiala House, Saket, Karkardooma, Rohini, Dwarka), with appeals to the Delhi High Court.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Electronic evidence is not automatically reliable just because it's digital — Indian law imposes specific authentication requirements before it can even be admitted.
2. The certificate requirement under Section 63, BSA, 2023 (the successor to Section 65B, Evidence Act) is a genuine, frequently-litigated battleground — missing or defective certificates are among the most successful grounds for challenge.
3. The Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 made the certificate a "condition precedent" for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence — this remains good law and now applies through Section 63.
4. Objections to a document's mode of proof (like a missing certificate) generally must be raised when the evidence is tendered, not after trial — delayed objections risk being treated as waived.
5. Even properly certified electronic evidence can still be challenged on reliability grounds — chain of custody, hash mismatches, and the qualifications of the forensic expert who examined it.
6. The BSA 2023 introduced a dual-certification requirement (device custodian plus an independent expert) for certain electronic records, which is stricter than the old Section 65B regime and gives the defence additional grounds to scrutinise compliance.

Table of Contents

1. What the Law Says About Electronic Evidence
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
3. The Certificate Requirement — Why It's the Central Battleground
4. Latest Legal Position
5. Supreme Court Judgments
6. Grounds on Which Electronic Evidence Can Be Challenged
7. Court Procedure to Raise a Challenge
8. Jurisdiction — Delhi's Criminal Court Structure
9. Documents Required
10. Evidence and Technical Proof Required
11. Timing and Limitation for Objections
12. Costs Involved
13. Common Prosecution Defences to Your Challenge
14. Common Mistakes
15. Risks and Limitations
16. Practical Legal Advice
17. Litigation Strategy
18. Alternative Remedies
19. Step-by-Step Action Plan
20. Frequently Asked Questions

1. What the Law Says About Electronic Evidence

Yes — electronic evidence can absolutely be challenged in a Delhi criminal case, and Indian law builds specific safeguards into the process precisely because digital records are easy to alter, fabricate, or misattribute. Whether it's CCTV footage from a Delhi Police FIR, call detail records (CDRs) placing a phone at a location, WhatsApp chats, emails, or a forensic image of a seized device, electronic evidence has to clear a distinct legal bar before a court can rely on it — and that bar is where most successful challenges happen.

The governing framework has recently changed: as of 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 entirely, alongside the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Cases that were already pending when the new laws came into force generally continue under the old regime, so knowing which law applies to your case is itself an important first step.

2. Relevant Legal Provisions

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63 — the current governing provision for admissibility of electronic records, replacing Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It deems electronic information (printed, stored, or copied) to be a "document," admissible without production of the original, subject to specified conditions being satisfied.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63(4) — requires a certificate authenticating the electronic record; notably, the BSA introduced a dual-certification structure (Part A by the person in charge of the device, Part B by a qualified expert) for certain records, going further than the old Section 65B(4), which required only a single certificate from a responsible person.
• Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79A — provides for an "Examiner of Electronic Evidence," whose opinion is treated as a relevant expert opinion on matters relating to information transmitted or stored electronically.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 330 — governs when a forensic/expert witness must personally appear in court; broadly, an expert's report can be relied upon without oral testimony unless it is formally disputed by the opposing party, making a timely, specific challenge important.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 65B — remains relevant for cases that were pending before 1 July 2024, since the BSA's repeal-and-savings clause preserves the old law for those matters.

3. The Certificate Requirement — Why It's the Central Battleground

The single most litigated issue around electronic evidence in Indian criminal trials, including in Delhi's courts, is the certificate requirement. Under both the old Section 65B(4) and the current Section 63(4), a certificate is generally required before electronic evidence (other than the original device itself, produced and proved by its owner) can be admitted. This certificate must:

• Identify the specific electronic record
• Describe the manner in which it was produced
• Give particulars of the device involved
• Confirm that the statutory conditions for reliability were satisfied
• Be signed by a person in a responsible position regarding the device's operation (and, under the BSA's stricter regime, also by a qualified expert for certain categories of records)

If the prosecution tenders a CDR, CCTV footage, or a chat extraction report without this certificate — or with a defective one that doesn't properly identify the device, doesn't describe the extraction process, or is signed by someone not in a position to certify it — that is a genuine, often winning ground to challenge the evidence's admissibility.

4. Latest Legal Position

• The requirement of a certificate under Section 63(4), BSA (successor to Section 65B(4)) is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic evidence tendered as secondary evidence — not a mere procedural formality that can be waived after the fact.
• Where the original device itself is produced in court and its owner/custodian testifies to it directly, no certificate is required — this is treated as primary evidence and falls outside the certificate regime entirely.
• Where a party genuinely cannot obtain the certificate because the person or authority who should issue it is unresponsive, uncooperative, or unavailable, the party can apply to the court to summon that person or otherwise direct production of the certificate — the mandatory certificate requirement does not mean a party is left without remedy if they've made genuine efforts.
• The BSA's introduction of dual certification (device custodian plus independent expert) for certain records is genuinely new and untested territory — courts are still developing consistent practice on exactly who qualifies as an "expert" for this purpose, which itself is fertile ground for a defence challenge in ongoing and new cases.
• Cases straddling the transition from the old Evidence Act regime to the new BSA regime have already thrown up genuine practical problems — for instance, prosecution witnesses producing certificates in the wrong format, or under the wrong statute, which defence counsel have successfully flagged as defects.

5. Supreme Court Judgments

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 — the Parliament Attack case, decided by the Supreme Court on facts arising from Delhi, initially held that secondary electronic evidence could be proved under general provisions even without strict compliance with the certificate requirement; this position was later overruled.
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 — a three-judge bench held that Sections 65A and 65B (now Section 63, BSA) form a complete code governing admissibility of electronic records, and secondary electronic evidence is inadmissible without the requisite certificate; this overruled the more permissive approach in Navjot Sandhu.
• Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801 — briefly suggested the certificate requirement was procedural and could be relaxed in the interests of justice, particularly where the producing party wasn't in control of the relevant device.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 — a three-judge bench resolved the conflict, holding that Anvar correctly stated the law and that the certificate requirement is mandatory (a "condition precedent"), overruling Shafhi Mohammad on this point, while clarifying that no certificate is needed where the original device itself is produced and proved by its owner, and providing a procedural route (summoning the certificate-issuer) where a party has made genuine, exhausted efforts to obtain the certificate without success.
• Sonu v. State of Haryana — clarified that the requirement of a certificate is a matter of the mode of proof, and an objection on this ground should be raised when the document is tendered in evidence during trial, not belatedly.
• Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 518 — confirmed that where primary evidence in electronic form (the original recording/device itself) is produced, no Section 65B/63 certificate is necessary at all.

6. Grounds on Which Electronic Evidence Can Be Challenged

• Missing or defective certificate — the most common and often most successful ground; scrutinise whether it correctly identifies the device, describes the extraction/production process, and is signed by someone genuinely in a position to certify it.
• Broken or undocumented chain of custody — gaps between seizure, forensic examination, and production in court create doubt about whether the evidence produced is the same as what was originally seized.
• Evidence of tampering — mismatched hash values between the original seizure and the version produced in court are a strong technical indicator of alteration.
• Improper seizure or collection procedure — electronic devices or data not seized, imaged, or preserved in accordance with standard forensic protocol (e.g., no write-blocking, no proper imaging before analysis) can undermine reliability.
• Unqualified or improperly examined expert — where the forensic analysis relies on an "expert" opinion (e.g., an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under the IT Act), their qualifications, methodology, and conclusions can be challenged through cross-examination.
• Location/attribution gaps — for CDR-based location evidence, gaps or ambiguities in how a specific device or SIM was tied to the accused (rather than just a number) are frequently contested.
• Non-production of the original/source data — where only a curated extract or printout is offered without the underlying original record being available for verification.

7. Court Procedure to Raise a Challenge

1. Review the charge sheet and annexed electronic evidence carefully the moment it's supplied, checking for the certificate, chain-of-custody documentation, and forensic report.
2. Raise admissibility objections at the earliest appropriate stage — ideally when the prosecution formally tenders the electronic evidence during trial, since delayed objections risk being treated as waived on the mode-of-proof point.
3. Cross-examine the certifying witness and any forensic expert rigorously on the certificate's accuracy, the collection methodology, hash values, and chain of custody.
4. File a formal objection/application where appropriate, asking the court to rule on admissibility before the evidence is exhibited, rather than allowing it to go on record unchallenged.
5. Where reliability (not just admissibility) is in question, use cross-examination and, where warranted, an independent forensic opinion to challenge the weight the court should give the evidence, even if it's technically admissible.
6. On appeal, if the trial court wrongly admitted or relied on improperly certified/authenticated electronic evidence, this can be a specific ground of challenge before the Delhi High Court.

8. Jurisdiction — Delhi's Criminal Court Structure

Delhi's criminal trials are conducted across several district court complexes, each handling matters arising within its territorial jurisdiction:

• Tis Hazari Courts — Central and North Delhi
• Patiala House Courts — New Delhi district and, historically, South/South-West matters (now substantially reorganised)
• Karkardooma Courts — East and North-East Delhi
• Saket Courts — South and South-East Delhi
• Rohini Courts — North-West and West Delhi
• Dwarka Courts — South-West Delhi

Which specific court hears your matter depends on where the alleged offence occurred or where the FIR was registered. Appeals and revisions from trial court orders, including on evidentiary rulings, lie to the Delhi High Court. Delhi also has its own Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), based in Rohini, which frequently conducts the technical examination of electronic evidence in Delhi Police cases — the specific examiner's credentials and methodology are often a point of scrutiny in contested cases.

9. Documents Required

• The charge sheet and all annexed electronic evidence (CDRs, CCTV footage, chat extraction reports, forensic reports)
• The certificate(s) purportedly authenticating the electronic evidence under Section 63, BSA (or Section 65B, if the case predates 1 July 2024)
• The forensic laboratory's examination report and the examiner's credentials
• Seizure memos and any chain-of-custody documentation from the point of seizure through forensic examination to production in court
• Any hash value records generated at the time of seizure and subsequently, for comparison

10. Evidence and Technical Proof Required

• To challenge admissibility: documentary proof that the certificate is missing, incomplete, or doesn't meet the statutory requirements (wrong device particulars, no description of the production process, an unauthorised signatory).
• To challenge reliability: hash value comparisons showing discrepancies, gaps in the seizure-to-court chain of custody, evidence that forensic protocol wasn't followed (e.g., no write-blocker used, device connected to a network after seizure), or an independent forensic expert's opinion contradicting the prosecution's analysis.
• To challenge attribution: evidence disputing that the specific device, SIM, or account genuinely belonged to or was used by the accused at the relevant time.

11. Timing and Limitation for Objections

• At trial: admissibility objections relating to the certificate/mode of proof should generally be raised when the evidence is tendered — courts have held that failing to object at that stage risks the objection being treated as waived for the remainder of the trial.
• During investigation/before charge sheet filing: while the accused typically has limited formal opportunity to object at this stage, early legal advice can help identify defects that should be flagged the moment the evidence is formally tendered at trial.
• Appeal: if the trial court's evidentiary ruling on electronic evidence is challenged after conviction, this becomes a ground within the ordinary criminal appeal process, generally governed by the standard appeal timelines under the BNSS (broadly similar to the earlier CrPC framework, commonly 30 to 60 days depending on the sentence and forum, though this should be confirmed for your specific case).

12. Costs Involved

• Independent forensic expert fees, where the defence seeks its own technical analysis to counter or test the prosecution's forensic report — this can be a meaningful but often decisive expense in serious cases.
• Advocate's fees, which vary significantly with the complexity of the case and the extent of technical cross-examination required.
• Certified copies and RTI-type applications for records relating to the seizure and forensic chain of custody, where needed to build the challenge.
• Criminal defence in cases with substantial electronic evidence (financial fraud, cybercrime, serious offences relying on CDR/CCTV evidence) tends to be more resource-intensive than more straightforward matters, given the specialised technical scrutiny involved.

13. Common Prosecution Defences to Your Challenge

• Substantial compliance — arguing that even if the certificate has technical defects, there was substantial compliance sufficient to establish authenticity (though after Arjun Panditrao, courts scrutinise this argument closely rather than accepting it loosely).
• Waiver — arguing the defence failed to object when the evidence was originally tendered and cannot raise the objection belatedly.
• Primary evidence exception — arguing the original device was produced and proved by its custodian, so no certificate was ever required in the first place.
• Genuine unavailability — arguing that reasonable efforts were made to obtain the certificate and the court should exercise the summoning/production remedy rather than exclude the evidence outright.

14. Common Mistakes

• Failing to scrutinise the certificate and chain-of-custody documentation early, only raising concerns late in trial when the objection may be treated as waived.
• Focusing only on the certificate's existence without checking whether its actual content meets the statutory particulars required.
• Not engaging an independent forensic expert in cases where the prosecution's technical evidence is central and genuinely contestable.
• Overlooking the difference between admissibility challenges (can the evidence be considered at all) and reliability challenges (how much weight should it be given) — both matter, and conflating them weakens your strategy.
• Assuming that because a case predates 1 July 2024, the BSA automatically applies — pending matters generally continue under the old Evidence Act regime under the BSA's repeal-and-savings clause, so confirming which law governs your specific case is essential.

15. Risks and Limitations

• A well-founded certificate objection can exclude evidence, but courts also have remedial tools (like summoning the certificate-issuer) that can allow the prosecution to cure the defect rather than lose the evidence entirely.
• Reliability challenges (chain of custody, tampering) require genuine technical scrutiny and often independent expert input — a bare assertion without technical grounding rarely succeeds.
• Delay in raising an objection is a real risk; courts have consistently held that mode-of-proof objections must be raised promptly, not saved for appeal.
• The dual-certification requirement under the BSA is still being tested in practice; while it offers fresh grounds for challenge, the law here is less settled than the well-worn Section 65B jurisprudence, which cuts both ways for strategic planning.

16. Practical Legal Advice

• Get a copy of all electronic evidence and its certificates as early as possible — ideally the moment the charge sheet is filed — so any defects can be identified well before trial.
• Don't wait to object — flag admissibility concerns the moment the evidence is tendered in court, since delayed objections carry real waiver risk.
• Consider independent forensic input early in cases where electronic evidence is central to the prosecution's case, particularly for CDR-based location evidence or contested chat/device extractions.
• Keep the distinction between "inadmissible" and "unreliable" clear in your strategy — even evidence that clears the admissibility bar can still be undermined through rigorous cross-examination on its reliability and weight.

17. Litigation Strategy

1. Audit every piece of electronic evidence against the Section 63 (or Section 65B, if applicable) checklist the moment it's disclosed — identify precisely which particulars are missing or defective in each certificate.
2. Time your objections deliberately — raise mode-of-proof objections the moment the evidence is tendered, preserving the point cleanly for both trial and any subsequent appeal.
3. Use cross-examination strategically — target the certifying witness on the specifics of device operation and production, and the forensic expert on methodology, chain of custody, and hash verification.
4. Weigh independent forensic analysis where the case turns significantly on contested digital evidence — this can surface tampering or attribution problems the prosecution's own report doesn't address.
5. Preserve both admissibility and reliability arguments in the trial record, so that even if admissibility challenges don't fully succeed, reliability arguments remain available to affect the weight given to the evidence at judgment, and as appellate grounds if needed.

18. Alternative Remedies

• Discharge application (or, under the BNSS, the equivalent provision), where the electronic evidence is so fundamentally deficient that the case against the accused cannot be sustained even at the framing-of-charge stage.
• Quashing petition before the Delhi High Court under the BNSS's inherent powers provision, in appropriate cases where the prosecution is manifestly unsustainable on the available evidence.
• Appeal or revision after trial, where the trial court's evidentiary rulings on electronic evidence are challenged as legally incorrect.

19. Step-by-Step Action Plan

1. Obtain complete copies of all electronic evidence, certificates, seizure memos, and forensic reports from the charge sheet at the earliest opportunity.
2. Confirm whether your case falls under the BSA, 2023 (post-1 July 2024) or continues under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (pending matters), since this determines the exact certificate standard that applies.
3. Audit each certificate against the statutory particulars required — device identification, production process, applicable conditions, and proper signatory (and, under the BSA, expert co-certification where required).
4. Assess chain-of-custody documentation and, where feasible, obtain independent forensic input on hash values and collection methodology.
5. Prepare to raise admissibility objections at the precise moment the evidence is tendered in trial — don't defer this.
6. Cross-examine the certifying witness and forensic expert rigorously, covering both certificate compliance and substantive reliability.
7. Maintain a clear trial record of every objection raised, to preserve both trial-stage and appellate options.
8. If convicted, evaluate whether flawed admission or reliance on electronic evidence provides a genuine ground of appeal to the Delhi High Court.

20. Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can CCTV footage be challenged in a Delhi criminal case? Yes — CCTV footage is electronic evidence and must meet the certificate and authentication requirements under Section 63, BSA (or Section 65B, for pending cases); missing certificates, chain-of-custody gaps, or evidence of tampering are all valid grounds to challenge it.

2. What happens if the prosecution doesn't produce a certificate for electronic evidence? Without a valid certificate (and absent the exception where the original device itself is produced and proved by its owner), the electronic evidence can be held inadmissible — the certificate is a condition precedent, not a mere formality.

3. Can call detail records (CDRs) be challenged in court? Yes — beyond certificate compliance, CDR-based evidence is frequently challenged on attribution grounds (whether the specific device/SIM is genuinely tied to the accused) and on the reliability of the cell-tower location data itself.

4. Is a WhatsApp chat admissible as evidence in a Delhi court? It can be, provided it meets the same certificate and authentication requirements as other electronic records — extraction reports, forensic imaging, and proper certification are typically required to establish authenticity.

5. What is the difference between Section 65B and Section 63 of the new law? Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, effective 1 July 2024, retaining the core certificate requirement while adding a dual-certification structure (device custodian plus an independent expert) for certain records.

6. When must I object to electronic evidence in a criminal trial? Generally at the point the evidence is tendered in court — objections raised for the first time much later in trial, or on appeal, risk being treated as waived on the mode-of-proof point.

7. Can I hire my own forensic expert to challenge the prosecution's electronic evidence? Yes, and in cases where digital evidence is central to the prosecution's case, independent forensic analysis can be a decisive tool for identifying tampering, chain-of-custody gaps, or flawed methodology.

8. Does a hash value mismatch automatically mean the evidence is fake? Not automatically, but it's a strong technical red flag suggesting the data may have been altered since seizure, and it shifts the burden onto the prosecution to explain the discrepancy.

9. Which court in Delhi handles criminal trials involving electronic evidence? Depends on where the offence occurred or the FIR was registered — Delhi's district court complexes (Tis Hazari, Patiala House, Karkardooma, Saket, Rohini, Dwarka) each handle criminal matters within their respective territorial jurisdiction, with appeals going to the Delhi High Court.

10. Can old cases still rely on Section 65B instead of the new Section 63? Yes — under the BSA's repeal-and-savings provision, cases that were already pending before 1 July 2024 generally continue to be governed by the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including the old Section 65B certificate regime.

11. Is it enough to just show the certificate is missing, or do I need more? A missing or clearly defective certificate is often enough to challenge admissibility on its own, but a comprehensive defence typically also examines chain of custody, forensic methodology, and attribution, since even properly certified evidence can still be challenged on reliability grounds.

12. Should I hire a criminal lawyer with digital evidence experience specifically? Strongly advisable in cases where electronic evidence is central — the technical particulars of certificate compliance, forensic methodology, and cross-examination of expert witnesses require specific familiarity that general criminal defence experience alone may not fully cover.

Conclusion

Yes — electronic evidence can be challenged in a Delhi criminal case, and Indian law gives the defence real, substantive tools to do so, not just procedural technicalities. The certificate requirement under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (or Section 65B, for pending matters) remains the single most important battleground, but it's far from the only one — chain of custody, tampering indicators, forensic methodology, and attribution all offer genuine grounds to contest digital evidence that looks conclusive on its face but may not hold up under scrutiny. The key practical lesson from the case law is timing: identify defects early, and raise your objections the moment the evidence is tendered, since Indian courts have been consistent that these are not challenges you can save for later.