What Section 63 covers
Section 63 addresses computer outputs containing information from an electronic record, including information printed, stored, recorded or copied through the specified electronic means. Its conditions concern regular use under lawful control, regular feeding of information in the ordinary course, reliable operation and faithful reproduction or derivation of the information.
The conditions matter for material such as CCTV exports, email records, call records and chat exports. A screenshot's appearance alone does not establish its source, integrity or the truth of what it depicts.
The certificate and the Schedule
Section 63(4) requires the certificate to accompany the electronic record at each instance when it is submitted for admission. It must identify the record, explain how it was produced, give appropriate device particulars and deal with the statutory operating conditions.
The signing provision refers to the person in charge of the computer or communication device, or the management of the relevant activities, and an expert. The Schedule labels Part A for the party and Part B for the expert and includes device/source details, hash values, the algorithm and an enclosed hash report.
Use the statutory form and accurate information about the actual source and extraction. A party's label in the Schedule does not justify inventing operational knowledge that the person does not possess. The earlier article's assertion that a particular commercial qualification such as CISSP is mandatory was unsupported by Section 63 and its Schedule and has been removed.
Originals and copies require careful distinction
Section 57 defines primary evidence and includes specific explanations for electronic records, including multiple stored files and records produced from proper custody, subject to the wording and qualifications in that section. Sections 61–63 separately govern electronic records and computer outputs.
It is therefore misleading to say, without qualification, that every electronic item must be excluded whenever a certificate is absent. Identify what is actually produced: an original record/device, an export, a printout or another computer output. Equally, merely calling a screenshot an “original” does not resolve the statutory requirements.
What Arjun Panditrao actually decided
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., decided on 14 July 2020, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, not the later BSA.
The Court confirmed the certificate requirement for computer-output evidence under Section 65B, while explaining the situation in which the original electronic record is produced and proved through its owner/operator. Where a system or network cannot itself be brought to court, the judgment explains why the computer-output route and certificate matter.
It also recognised court assistance to secure a certificate and the possibility of later production subject to the applicable procedural rules and fair-trial safeguards. An unavailable or initially missing certificate is not accurately described as invariably fatal and incapable of being supplied later. This does not make a required certificate optional or permit oral evidence to replace it.
Read the official judgment, paragraphs 32–34, 47–59 and 72. Its original-record discussion and procedural safeguards must be kept distinct from the new BSA wording, including the Schedule and the requirement at each submission for admission.
Practical preparation
Preserve the source record, its available metadata and the extraction details. Record who handled the device or obtained the export, and obtain truthful certificates and hash reports where required. Where the material is held by a third party, seek the appropriate court direction promptly. Admissibility, authenticity and the weight of the evidence remain separate questions; a completed certificate does not automatically prove every allegation in the record.
Correction — 20 October 2026: Corrected the case name, removed unsupported expert-qualification claims and absolute exclusion rules, and distinguished BSA certificate requirements from the earlier Evidence Act judgment.
