Snippet Answer (50 words)

If electronic evidence is not properly certified in India, it is inadmissible in court. Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 of BSA 2023), a certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic records. Without it, the evidence cannot be relied upon, and the court must exclude it.

📦 Quick Answer Box

What happens if electronic evidence lacks proper certification?

❌ The evidence is inadmissible — the court cannot rely on it.

Key consequences:

• No certificate = excluded evidence in cases relying on secondary electronic records
• In criminal cases, prosecution may collapse if key digital evidence (CCTV, call records, WhatsApp chats) is rejected
• In civil cases, digital contracts or emails without certification cannot establish facts
• Objection must be raised at trial — failure to object may waive the right in some scenarios
• Under BSA 2023: now requires dual certification (Part A by the device custodian + Part B by a forensic expert)
• Original electronic evidence produced directly from the source device does not require a certificate

🔑 Key Takeaways

• A Section 65B(4) certificate (now Section 63(4) BSA 2023) is mandatory for the admissibility of secondary electronic records — printouts, CDs, screenshots, downloaded files
• The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 settled definitively that this certificate is not a procedural formality but a condition precedent to admissibility
• If the original device itself is produced before the court, no certificate is required — only secondary copies require certification
• BSA 2023 (in force July 1, 2024) replaces Section 65B with Section 63, introduces a two-part certificate (device custodian + forensic expert), and adds a hash value verification requirement
• If you cannot obtain the certificate, you can apply to the court under Section 63(4) to compel the person in custody of the device to produce it
• An objection to certification must be raised at trial; failing to object may limit your ability to raise it on appeal
• For proceedings initiated from July 1, 2024, BSA 2023 (Section 63) applies; for older proceedings, IEA Section 65B still governs

1. The Core Problem: Why Certification Matters

Digital evidence is now central to virtually every category of Indian litigation — criminal prosecutions, commercial disputes, matrimonial cases, defamation suits, and cheque bounce proceedings all routinely involve WhatsApp messages, emails, call detail records, CCTV footage, bank transaction logs, and social media posts. But Indian law does not allow this evidence to walk into court on its own. It must be authenticated through a formal certification process.

The problem is that this certification requirement is widely misunderstood, routinely ignored, and frequently used as a procedural weapon by opposing parties to exclude damaging electronic evidence. A photograph of an incriminating text message, a printout of a banking transaction, or a CD containing CCTV footage — all of these can be thrown out of court entirely if the correct certification procedure has not been followed.

Understanding what happens when electronic evidence is improperly certified is not a theoretical exercise. It is the difference between winning and losing a case.

2. What the Law Says: A Statutory Overview

Two statutory frameworks govern electronic evidence certification in India, depending on when the proceedings were initiated:

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) — Sections 65A and 65B
Applicable to all proceedings initiated before July 1, 2024. Section 65A provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 65B. Section 65B(4) requires that a certificate be furnished by the responsible official who has custody of or access to the computer system that produced the electronic record.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) — Sections 61, 62, and 63
Applicable to all proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2024. The BSA replaces the IEA entirely for new proceedings. Section 61 recognizes electronic records as admissible documents. Section 62 mandates that they be proved in accordance with Section 63. Section 63(4) introduces a two-part certificate structure — a significant change from the single-certificate requirement under Section 65B.

The substantive legal position on what happens when certification is absent or improper — inadmissibility — is the same under both frameworks. What has changed under BSA 2023 is the nature and complexity of what proper certification requires.

3. Section 65B IEA and Section 63 BSA 2023 — Key Provisions Explained

Under Section 65B IEA:

Section 65B(1): 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 shall be deemed to be a document.

Section 65B(2): Sets out the conditions the computer must satisfy — regular use, proper operation, and accuracy of the stored information.

Section 65B(4): Requires a certificate signed by a responsible official in a managerial position in relation to the operation of the relevant device, which must:

• Identify the electronic record;
• Describe the manner in which it was produced;
• Confirm the relevant conditions in Section 65B(2) were satisfied; and
• Deal with any code or computer program used.

Under Section 63 BSA 2023:

Section 63 retains the core framework of Section 65B but expands the scope to include semiconductor memory and any "communication device" — explicitly covering smartphones, tablets, and IoT devices, which Section 65B had left open to interpretation.

The key change under Section 63(4) is the introduction of a two-part certificate:

Part A — to be completed by the person in charge or custody of the computer or communication device. This is the equivalent of the old Section 65B(4) certificate, confirming the device's operation and the accuracy of the record.

Part B — to be completed by an expert: specifically, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence recognized under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This expert must certify the technical authenticity of the record.

Additionally, BSA 2023 requires the certificate to be accompanied by a hash value report of the electronic record — a cryptographic fingerprint that proves the record has not been altered between its capture and production in court.

4. When Is a Certificate NOT Required?

This is the most practically important exception, and it is widely misunderstood.

The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) explicitly held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is required only when secondary copies of an electronic record are being produced. If the original device itself is produced before the court and the relevant information is demonstrated directly from that device, no Section 65B certificate is required.

In practical terms:

• A printout of a WhatsApp chat → certificate required
• A CD/DVD copy of CCTV footage → certificate required
• A downloaded screenshot of an email → certificate required
• The actual mobile phone itself, from which the WhatsApp message is shown to the court → no certificate required
• The original server or hard drive produced directly before the court → no certificate required

The distinction between original and secondary electronic records is therefore the first question any litigant must answer before deciding whether a certification issue exists in their case.

5. The Legal Consequences of Improper or Missing Certification

When electronic evidence is produced without the required certificate, or with a defective certificate, the consequences are severe:

1. Inadmissibility
   The evidence is excluded from the court record. The judge cannot read it, refer to it in the judgment, or rely on it in any finding. It is as if the evidence does not exist.
2. Collapse of prosecution or claim
   In criminal cases where the prosecution depends on digital evidence — call detail records, electronic banking transactions, CCTV footage, or mobile device data — rejection of uncertified records can fatally undermine the case. In Anvar PV v. PK Basheer (2014), the Supreme Court allowed an appeal partly because CDs containing campaign material were produced without a Section 65B certificate.
3. Adverse findings in civil disputes
   In commercial litigation, digital contracts, email threads, and electronic invoices that lack certificates are treated as unproved documents. A party relying on such evidence to establish a cause of action may fail entirely.
4. No retrospective cure (in most cases)
   The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar recognized that a certificate could be sought later — but only if the party had applied to the court to compel production of the certificate from the person in custody of the device, and the court had directed its production. Simply submitting a certificate at the appellate stage — after not raising it at trial — is generally impermissible.
5. Waiver by failure to object
   The flip side: if you are the party seeking to exclude improperly certified electronic evidence, and you fail to object at trial, the Supreme Court's decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana indicates this objection may not be entertained by the appellate court. The objection must be raised at the earliest opportunity — ideally when the document is first tendered in evidence.
6. The Supreme Court's Definitive Position: From Navjot Sandhu to Arjun Panditrao

The law on electronic evidence certification has been shaped by a sequence of Supreme Court decisions that corrected each other over two decades:

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
The earliest significant ruling. The Supreme Court treated Section 65B as optional and allowed electronic evidence (call records) to be proved through general secondary evidence provisions. This created the mistaken impression that the certificate was not strictly necessary.

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
A three-judge bench corrected Navjot Sandhu and held that Sections 65A and 65B are a complete and exclusive code for admitting electronic records. The certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory. Oral evidence cannot substitute for it. This judgment also overruled Navjot Sandhu on this point.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
A two-judge bench retreated from Anvar, holding that the certificate requirement is merely procedural and can be relaxed in the interest of justice — particularly where the evidence is collected by police who may not have access to the device owner for certification. This created direct conflict with the three-bench ruling in Anvar.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
A three-judge bench resolved the conflict definitively. The Court:

• Affirmed Anvar and overruled Shafhi Mohammad
• Held that the Section 65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of secondary electronic records — not a procedural formality
• Clarified that the certificate is not needed for original electronic evidence produced directly
• Recognized a narrow relief: where the party cannot obtain the certificate because the custodian of the device is an adverse party or under the control of the opponent, the court can be asked to compel production
• Held that the objection to missing certification must be raised at trial, not for the first time on appeal

This judgment remains the governing authority, and its principles are substantially carried forward into Section 63 BSA 2023.

7. What BSA 2023 Changes: The Dual Certificate and Hash Value Requirement

BSA 2023, effective July 1, 2024, introduces three significant changes that parties and their lawyers must now understand:

Change 1 — Dual Certification
The single-officer certificate under Section 65B(4) IEA is replaced by a two-part certificate under Section 63(4) BSA. Part A (device custodian's declaration) and Part B (independent forensic expert's verification) must both be furnished. This effectively means that every piece of secondary electronic evidence now requires a forensic expert's input — raising the cost and complexity of electronic evidence production significantly.

Change 2 — Hash Value Report
A cryptographic hash value of the electronic record must be submitted along with the certificate. The hash value is a unique digital fingerprint generated from the file's content. It allows the court to verify that the file has not been altered since it was captured. Without the hash value, even an otherwise valid certificate may be insufficient.

Change 3 — Expanded Scope
Section 63 explicitly covers semiconductor memory (RAM, SSD, flash drives) and "any communication device" — expressly including smartphones and other digital devices that were arguably not covered by the original wording of Section 65B, which focused on "computers."

For proceedings from July 1, 2024: if your electronic evidence lacks a Part B expert certificate or a hash value report, it is at risk of being challenged and excluded under BSA 2023.

8. High Court Judgments

Punjab and Haryana High Court — WhatsApp Chats
Following Arjun Panditrao, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that WhatsApp chat screenshots submitted without a Section 65B(4) certificate have no evidentiary value. This is now frequently cited by courts dealing with digital messages in matrimonial and harassment cases.

Delhi High Court (Kundan Singh v. State 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13647)
Held that the certificate need not be produced at the moment of tendering but could be produced at a later stage of proceedings where the party had made genuine efforts and could demonstrate inability to obtain it in time. This flexibility — recognized but limited — was later endorsed by Arjun Panditrao.

Various High Courts on call detail records (CDRs)
Courts have consistently held that CDRs produced by telecom companies without a Section 65B certificate from the authorised company official are inadmissible. The telecom company's representative must certify the CDRs and that representative must be available for cross-examination.

9. Court Procedure When Certification Is Challenged

In practice, when a party produces electronic evidence without proper certification, the following procedural sequence typically unfolds:

Stage 1 — Tendering of Electronic Evidence
The party producing the electronic record tenders it as a document before the court (as a printout, CD, screenshot, or copied file). At this stage, the certificate should ideally accompany the document.

Stage 2 — Objection by Opposing Party
The opposing party raises a formal objection — orally or through a written application — challenging the admissibility of the electronic record on the ground that no valid Section 65B (or Section 63 BSA) certificate has been produced. This objection must be made at this stage; failure to object now may preclude raising it on appeal.

Stage 3 — Court's Ruling on Admissibility
The court decides whether the evidence is admissible. If the certificate is missing and the original device has not been produced, the court must exclude the evidence. If there is a certificate but it is defective (wrong officer, incomplete conditions), the court may either exclude it or ask for a corrected certificate.

Stage 4 — Direction for Production (if applicable)
Where the party seeking to introduce electronic evidence cannot obtain the certificate because the device is in the custody of the opponent or a third party, the court can direct that person to produce the certificate under Section 165 IEA / Section 136 BSA. Failure to comply with such a direction can have adverse evidentiary consequences for the non-complying party.

Stage 5 — Appellate Challenge
If the trial court incorrectly admitted uncertified electronic evidence, the aggrieved party can raise this on appeal — but only if the objection was raised at trial. If no objection was raised, the appellate court may decline to entertain the certification challenge under Sonu v. State of Haryana.

10. How to Compel Production of the Certificate

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar explicitly recognized that a party who genuinely cannot obtain the Section 65B certificate — because the device is controlled by the opponent, a government authority, or a telecom company — is not without remedy.

The practical steps to compel certificate production:

1. File an application before the trial court requesting a direction to the person in control of the device or system to furnish a Section 65B / Section 63(4) certificate.
2. In criminal matters, the Magistrate or Sessions Judge can direct production under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS 2023).
3. In civil matters, the court can issue a notice to the relevant party or third party to produce the certificate as part of discovery.
4. Where a government body (telecom company, bank, ISP) holds the electronic records, apply for a court-directed requisition specifically seeking certified electronic records.
5. If the certificate is refused after a court direction, the court may draw an adverse inference against the party in control of the device.

11. Documents and Information Required for Certification

If you are preparing a certificate under Section 65B IEA (for older cases) or Section 63(4) BSA 2023 (for new proceedings), you need:

For Part A (Device Custodian — Section 63(4) BSA):

• Full name and designation of the certifying officer
• Identification of the computer/communication device (model, serial number, IP address if applicable)
• Description of how the electronic record was produced (captured, copied, downloaded)
• Confirmation that the device was in regular use during the period the record was generated
• Confirmation that the device was properly operating
• Declaration that the information accurately represents the original electronic data

For Part B (Expert — Section 63(4) BSA):

• Name and credentials of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence (under Section 79A IT Act)
• Technical verification of the record's authenticity
• Hash value of the electronic file (MD5, SHA-256, or equivalent)
• Statement that the record has not been altered

For Section 65B IEA (older cases):

• Single certificate from a responsible official in a managerial position
• The four conditions in Section 65B(2) confirmed

12. Timeline

13. Costs Involved

• Forensic expert fees (Part B, BSA 2023): ₹10,000–₹75,000 depending on the complexity of the electronic record and the expert's credentials. For complex cyber forensics (network intrusions, metadata analysis), costs can be significantly higher.
• Advocate fees for drafting compel-production application: ₹5,000–₹25,000 at district/sessions court level
• CERT-In empanelled examiner: Government-empanelled examiners under the IT Act may have fixed rates; private examiners vary
• Telecom CDR certification: Telecom companies typically provide certified records in response to court summons without a separate fee, but the process can be slow

14. Common Defences Against an Electronic Evidence Certification Challenge

If your electronic evidence is being challenged for lack of or defective certification, these defences may be available:

Defence 1 — The original device was produced.
If the device from which the electronic record originated is physically before the court and the evidence is being demonstrated directly from it, no certificate is required. Argue this explicitly.

Defence 2 — Substantial compliance.
Some courts have accepted arguments of "substantial compliance" where the certifying officer was cross-examined and confirmed the conditions. This is a narrow defence and not universally accepted post-Arjun Panditrao, but in cases where the opposition failed to object at the right time, it carries more weight.

Defence 3 — Failure to object at trial (if you are the proponent).
If the opposing party failed to raise an objection when the document was tendered, they may be precluded from raising the certification issue on appeal under Sonu v. State of Haryana.

Defence 4 — Court direction to produce certificate.
If the non-production of the certificate was due to the opposing party's refusal to cooperate, argue that the court should draw an adverse inference against the party refusing to furnish the certificate rather than excluding the evidence.

15. Common Mistakes That Lead to Certification Failures
16. Treating the certificate as an afterthought.
    Litigants and even advocates often produce the electronic evidence first and think about the certificate later. By then, the document has already been tendered and objected to. The certificate must accompany the document when it is first produced.
17. Getting the certificate from the wrong person.
    The certificate must be signed by a person responsible for the management of the computer/device — not by any available employee. A junior IT executive signing a certificate for an organizational server will likely not meet the requirement.
18. Using screenshots as evidence without certification.
    Mobile screenshots of WhatsApp, Instagram, emails, or SMSs are among the most commonly submitted — and most commonly rejected — digital evidence in Indian courts. A screenshot is a secondary electronic record. It requires a Section 65B/63 certificate to be admissible.
19. Ignoring the hash value requirement under BSA 2023.
    For proceedings filed from July 1, 2024, the hash value report is mandatory along with the Part B expert certificate. Many advocates are still unaware of this requirement and continue to follow the old Section 65B practice.
20. Submitting a certificate without the expert's Part B (BSA 2023 cases).
    Submitting only the Part A (custodian's certificate) without the forensic expert's Part B renders the certificate incomplete under Section 63(4) BSA 2023.
21. Not objecting when the opponent's electronic evidence is uncertified.
    If opposing digital evidence lacks a certificate and you fail to object when it is tendered, you may lose the right to challenge it later. Object immediately and have the objection recorded in the court proceedings.
22. Risks and Limitations

• The two-part certification requirement under BSA 2023 creates a significant practical burden — particularly in urgent proceedings where forensic expert availability is limited.
• Even a properly certified electronic record can be challenged on the grounds that the hash value does not match (tampering argument) or that the certifying expert lacks the necessary Section 79A credentials.
• The requirement to raise certification objections at trial — and the risk of waiver — means both the proponent and the opponent of electronic evidence must be procedurally vigilant from the very first day the document is placed before the court.
• In criminal cases, the police often collect electronic evidence (mobile phones, hard drives, server logs) but do not obtain Section 65B/63 certificates at the time of seizure. By the time the prosecution reaches trial, obtaining a certificate retroactively from a private party's seized device is procedurally complicated.

17. Practical Legal Advice

If you are producing electronic evidence:

• Obtain the certificate before the trial date on which you plan to tender the document — not on that date, and certainly not after.
• For BSA 2023 cases, instruct a Section 79A-qualified forensic expert at the outset of the case, not at the evidence stage.
• Generate and preserve the hash value of every electronic file you intend to produce in court, from the moment it is first captured or downloaded.
• Where the device is with you, produce the original device where possible — this avoids the certificate requirement entirely.

If you are challenging electronic evidence:

• Review every electronic document tendered by the opponent for certification compliance.
• Object formally and on the record the moment an uncertified or improperly certified electronic record is tendered.
• Under BSA 2023 cases, check specifically for the two-part certificate and the hash value report — either missing element is sufficient grounds for exclusion.

18. Litigation Strategy

Strategy 1 — For prosecution / plaintiff relying on digital evidence: build the certificate into the case from day one.
Do not leave certification to the evidence stage. As soon as you identify which electronic records you will rely on, initiate the certification process. If records are held by third parties (banks, telecom companies, social media platforms), file applications for their production with certification under Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS as early as possible.

Strategy 2 — For defence / defendant challenging digital evidence: monitor and object.
Document every piece of digital evidence tendered by the opposition. Make a written list at each hearing. When an uncertified record is tendered, rise immediately, make your objection specific ("This is a secondary electronic record tendered without a valid certificate under Section 63(4) BSA 2023"), and have the objection noted in the order sheet.

Strategy 3 — Use the compel-production remedy proactively.
If the certificate is with the opposition or a third party, do not wait until the trial date to discover it is unavailable. File a production application months in advance. Courts take certification applications seriously in complex commercial and criminal matters.

Strategy 4 — In BSA 2023 cases, use the missing expert certificate as a standalone ground.
Even if the device custodian (Part A) has signed, the absence of a qualified expert's Part B certificate is independently sufficient to exclude the evidence. This is a new, powerful tool for parties challenging digital evidence in proceedings from July 1, 2024.

19. Alternative Remedies When Certificate Cannot Be Obtained

• Produce the original device: Present the source device before the court. This eliminates the certificate requirement for the specific record stored on that device.
• Court direction for production: Apply to the court to compel the certificate from whoever controls the device. The court can direct production under Section 165 IEA or Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS for new cases).
• Adverse inference: Where the certificate cannot be obtained because the opposing party refuses to cooperate, argue that the court should draw an adverse inference against the non-cooperating party under Section 114(g) IEA (Section 117 BSA) — the inference being that the party is suppressing evidence that would be unfavourable to them.
• Oral evidence from the certifying officer: In some narrow circumstances, having the responsible officer appear as a witness and testify to the conditions in Section 65B(2)/63(2) may partially address certification concerns — though post-Arjun Panditrao, this should not be treated as a substitute for the certificate.

20. Step-by-Step Action Plan

For parties who want to produce electronic evidence in court:

Step 1: Identify all electronic records you will rely on and categorize them as original device records or secondary copies (printouts, screenshots, CDs, downloads).

Step 2: For original device records — ensure the device is preserved and available for production before the court. Do not rely on screenshots or copies if you can produce the actual device.

Step 3: For secondary copies — immediately engage the responsible person (the IT manager, server administrator, device owner, or telecom officer) and obtain a Section 65B(4) certificate (IEA cases) or a Section 63(4) Part A certificate (BSA 2023 cases).

Step 4: For BSA 2023 cases — simultaneously engage a Section 79A-qualified Examiner of Electronic Evidence to prepare the Part B certificate. This expert must also generate and certify the hash value of each electronic file.

Step 5: Ensure the certificate is complete, signed by the correct person, and accompanies the electronic record when it is first produced before the court.

Step 6: Keep a certified copy of the certificate on your side of the record for future reference and appeal.

For parties challenging improperly certified electronic evidence:

Step 1: Review every digital document your opponent has produced or listed as evidence.

Step 2: Check whether a certificate accompanies each secondary electronic record.

Step 3: Under BSA 2023: check both Part A and Part B of the certificate, and verify that a hash value report is attached.

Step 4: On the day the document is tendered, raise a formal objection on the record, citing the specific deficiency (missing certificate, missing Part B, missing hash value).

Step 5: Request the court to exclude the document and have the exclusion order recorded.

Step 6: If the court overrules your objection and admits the uncertified record, ensure this is noted for the appeal record.

21. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Is the Section 65B certificate mandatory for all electronic evidence?
No. The certificate is mandatory only for secondary electronic records — printouts, CDs, screenshots, copies. If the original device itself is produced directly before the court, no certificate is required. This was clarified definitively by the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020).

Q2. What happens if I submit a WhatsApp screenshot in court without a certificate?
The screenshot is a secondary electronic record. Without a valid certificate under Section 65B IEA (or Section 63(4) BSA 2023), it is inadmissible. Courts including the Punjab and Haryana High Court have excluded WhatsApp screenshots for this reason. The evidence will be rejected if the opposing party objects.

Q3. Can I cure a missing certificate after the electronic evidence has already been tendered?
In limited circumstances, yes — if you apply to the court for a direction to the device custodian to produce the certificate, and the court grants this direction. You cannot simply produce the certificate at the appellate stage without having raised the issue at trial.

Q4. What is the Section 65B equivalent under BSA 2023?
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (effective July 1, 2024) is the equivalent. It retains the core admissibility framework but introduces a two-part certificate: Part A (device custodian) and Part B (forensic expert under Section 79A IT Act 2000), plus a hash value report.

Q5. What is the hash value requirement under BSA 2023?
A hash value is a cryptographic fingerprint of an electronic file. Under BSA 2023, the certificate submitted under Section 63(4) must be accompanied by a hash value report confirming the file's digital integrity — proving it has not been altered since capture. The MD5 or SHA-256 algorithm is typically used.

Q6. Who can sign the certificate under Section 65B / Section 63(4) Part A?
The certificate must be signed by a person who is responsible for the operation of the computer system — a person in a managerial or responsible position in relation to the device. It cannot be signed by a junior employee with no oversight of the system.

Q7. What if the device is in the control of the opposing party and they refuse to provide the certificate?
Apply to the court for a direction to the opposing party to produce the certificate. Under Section 165 IEA / Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS), the court can compel production. Refusal may result in an adverse inference against the non-producing party.

Q8. Can oral evidence substitute for the Section 65B / 63 certificate?
No. The Supreme Court in Anvar PV (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) held that oral evidence cannot substitute for the certificate. The certificate is a condition precedent — not a formality that can be replaced by the certifying officer simply appearing as a witness.

Q9. If I fail to object to uncertified electronic evidence at trial, can I raise it in the appeal?
This is restricted. The decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana indicated that if no objection is raised at trial, the appellate court may decline to entertain the certification challenge. Objecting at the time of tendering is essential.

Q10. Does Section 65B / Section 63 apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases?
Yes. These provisions apply to all legal proceedings in which electronic records are produced — civil, criminal, quasi-judicial, and administrative. The certification requirement is not limited to any particular category of case.

Q11. Should I hire a lawyer to handle electronic evidence issues in my case?
Yes, in almost all cases. The interaction between Section 65B IEA and Section 63 BSA 2023, the judgment timeline from Navjot Sandhu to Arjun Panditrao, the new BSA dual-certificate requirement, the hash value procedure, and the procedural rules around objection and waiver all require specialist knowledge. An error at the tendering stage — either failing to certify properly or failing to object — can have irreversible consequences for the case outcome.

Q12. What happens to electronic evidence cases pending as of July 1, 2024?
For proceedings initiated before July 1, 2024, the IEA continues to govern, and Section 65B applies. For proceedings initiated from July 1, 2024, BSA 2023 and Section 63 apply, including the dual-certificate and hash value requirements. If any new electronic evidence is filed in an old case after July 1, 2024, the applicable law on the certification requirement depends on which statute governs that proceeding — a point that should be confirmed with a qualified advocate.

Conclusion

Improperly certified electronic evidence is not a minor procedural defect in Indian courts — it is a ground for complete exclusion of the evidence. The Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar removed any lingering ambiguity: the certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of secondary electronic records, and no court can cure its absence by admitting the evidence anyway.

BSA 2023 has raised the bar further. From July 1, 2024, electronic evidence requires dual certification — a device custodian's declaration and an independent forensic expert's verification — plus a hash value report confirming the record's digital integrity. These are not bureaucratic formalities. They are the gatekeeping mechanisms that determine whether digital evidence can speak in a court of law.

For anyone involved in Indian litigation where digital evidence matters — which is most litigation today — understanding this framework is not optional. Whether you are producing electronic evidence and need to certify it correctly, or challenging your opponent's uncertified digital records, get expert legal advice at the beginning of the evidence stage, not after a problem has arisen.