Section 63 BSA vs Section 65B Evidence Act — Complete Comparison 2026
Home > BSA 2023 Digital Evidence > Section 63 vs 65B Comparison
📅 Last Updated: August 2026 | ⚖️ Laws Compared: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 vs Indian Evidence Act 1872 | 🏛️ Valid for: All Indian Courts
Essential Court Evidence Preparation Guides (BSA 2023):
- Section 63 BSA Certificate Format & Template (2026 Download)
- How to Get WhatsApp Chat Certified for Court in India (Section 63 Guide)
- How to Prepare WhatsApp Chat for Court Case in India: Strategic Evidence Guide
- How to Submit WhatsApp Chat in Court Format in India: Complete Filing Guide
- How to Make WhatsApp Chat Legally Valid in Indian Courts (4-Pillar Guide)
- How to Print WhatsApp Chat for Court in India: Complete Evidence Guide
- WhatsApp Chat Evidence Converter Online India (Built for Indian Courts)
- Complete Guide to WhatsApp Evidence in Indian Courts (BSA 2023)
- WhatsApp Evidence in Delhi Courts: Admissibility & Filing Rules
💼 Generate Section 63 BSA 2023 Compliant Certificates Automatically
Two-signature format | SHA-256 Hash | Court-accepted across India | ₹999
🚀 Create Your Certificate Now →
Quick Answer: What Changed?
Section 63 BSA 2023 replaced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act on 1 July 2024. The core idea remains the same — electronic records need a certificate to be admitted as secondary evidence — but three critical upgrades make the new law far more robust:
| Change | Old Law (Section 65B) | New Law (Section 63 BSA) |
|---|---|---|
| Signatories | One: "person in responsible official position" | Two: Part A (device owner) + Part B (expert) |
| Hash Value | Not required | Mandatory SHA-256 — "electronic fingerprint" |
| Device Scope | "Computer" only (ambiguous for phones) | "Communication device" — smartphones explicitly covered |
| Certificate Format | No standardized form | Fixed Schedule format with Part A & Part B |
| Filing Timeline | Flexible (could be filed at any stage) | "At each instance" the record is submitted |
| Legal Status | Repealed 30 June 2024 | In force from 1 July 2024 |
Bottom line: Old Section 65B certificates are obsolete for new filings. Every electronic record tendered after 1 July 2024 needs a Section 63 BSA certificate with two signatures and a hash value.
The Legislative Change: 1 July 2024
On 1 July 2024, India replaced its 150-year-old evidence law with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. This was part of a trio of new criminal laws:
| Old Law | New Law | Effective Date |
|---|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 | 1 July 2024 |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 | 1 July 2024 |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 | 1 July 2024 |
For digital evidence, the critical change is Section 63 BSA replacing Section 65B IEA. The BSA also introduced:
- Section 57: Primary evidence definition (covers electronic records)
- Section 61: Electronic records are not inadmissible merely because they are electronic
- Section 62: Electronic records treated as documents
- Section 63: The certificate requirement for secondary electronic evidence
- The Schedule: Standardized certificate format with Part A and Part B
Clause-by-Clause Comparison
Section 63(1) vs Section 65B(1): What is Admissible?
| Aspect | Section 65B (Old) | Section 63 BSA (New) |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | "Computer output" printed on paper or stored in optical/magnetic media | Expanded: Adds "semiconductor memory" and "any communication device" |
| Smartphones | Ambiguous — argued whether a phone is a "computer" | Explicitly covered as "communication device" |
| Cloud Storage | Not explicitly mentioned | Covered under expanded media definitions |
| Admissibility | Deemed document if conditions satisfied | Same, but with broader device coverage |
Key Addition in Section 63(1): The phrase "or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form" removes all ambiguity about smartphones, tablets, and IoT devices.
Section 63(2) vs Section 65B(2): The Four Conditions
Both sections require four conditions, but Section 63 adds "creation operation" to include intermediaries:
| Condition | Section 65B | Section 63 BSA |
|---|---|---|
| (a) Regular use | Computer used regularly to store/process info | Computer or communication device used regularly to create, store or process info |
| (b) Regular feeding | Info regularly fed into computer | Info regularly fed into computer or communication device |
| (c) Proper operation | Computer operating properly | Computer or communication device operating properly |
| (d) Reproduction | Copy reproduces original info | Same |
Critical Addition: Section 63(2)(a) includes "create" operation — meaning intermediaries (like WhatsApp servers) that process data are now within the evidentiary framework.
Section 63(3) vs Section 65B(3): Combined Devices
Section 63(3) expands the "computer output" definition to explicitly include:
- (a) Any computer or communication device
- (b) Semiconductor memory
- (c) Any other electronic form
- (d) Cloud storage and distributed databases
- (e) Any appropriate equipment
This closes the old debate about whether WhatsApp messages stored on Meta's servers qualified as "computer output."
Section 63(4) vs Section 65B(4): The Certificate
This is where the biggest change lies:
| Element | Section 65B(4) | Section 63(4)(c) |
|---|---|---|
| Signatories | One person in "responsible official position" | Two persons: (a) person in charge of device + (b) an expert |
| Hash Value | Not mentioned | Mandatory — SHA-1, SHA-256, or MD5 |
| Format | No prescribed form | Standardized Schedule format with Part A & Part B |
| Filing | "At any stage" per SC rulings | "At each instance" the record is submitted |
| Penalty for False Certificate | Perjury under IPC | Section 248 BNS — up to 7 years imprisonment |
Section 63(5) vs Section 65B(5): Information Supply
Section 63(5) clarifies that information supplied to a "computer or communication device" in any form — directly or through equipment — qualifies. This covers:
- Auto-backups to cloud
- Cross-device syncing (WhatsApp Web, Desktop)
- IoT device data feeds
The Three Changes That Matter Most
1. Two Signatures Instead of One
The old law asked one "responsible" person to vouch for the record. The new law adds an expert who certifies the technical side. This means:
- Part A: Signed by the device owner or person in charge — confirms lawful possession and proper operation
- Part B: Signed by an expert — confirms hash value, technical integrity, and no tampering
Practical Impact: Litigants can no longer get away with a self-signed generic certificate. They need technical backing.
2. Mandatory Hash Value
A hash value is a fixed-length string generated by running a file through a mathematical function (like SHA-256). Change even one character in the file, and the hash changes completely.
Why it matters:
- Proves the file hasn't been tampered with since certification
- Gives the court a reliable way to verify integrity
- Guards against deepfakes and edited screenshots
The Supreme Court in May 2026 (Pune Bar Association case) upheld the hash requirement, calling it an "electronic fingerprint."
3. "Communication Device" Replaces "Computer"
The old law's "computer" wording led to endless arguments:
- Is a smartphone a computer?
- Is a CCTV DVR a computer?
- Is a smartwatch a computer?
Section 63 ends all debate by using "any communication device" — explicitly covering smartphones, tablets, smart TVs, and any device that communicates electronically.
Landmark Judgments Timeline (2005-2026)
The certificate requirement evolved through five landmark Supreme Court judgments over 21 years:
2005: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
Holding: Certificate is NOT a condition precedent. Electronic records can be admitted as secondary evidence without a certificate.
Impact: Permissive era — courts admitted electronic evidence freely.
2014: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
Holding: Sections 65A and 65B form a "complete code." The Section 65B(4) certificate is mandatory for electronic records led as secondary evidence.
Impact: Overruled Navjot Sandhu. Certificate became mandatory.
2018: Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Holding: Certificate requirement is procedural and relaxable where a party lacks the device.
Impact: Temporary dilution — some courts relaxed the requirement.
2020: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Holding: Shafhi Mohammad stated the law incorrectly. Certificate is mandatory again. Can be produced at any stage. Court can order production if refused.
Impact: The law settled. Certificate = mandatory. Foundation for Section 63 BSA.
2024: BSA 2023 Comes Into Force (1 July)
Section 63 replaces Section 65B. Two signatures + hash value added.
2026: Supreme Court Upholds Section 63(4) + Hash Value
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the hash value requirement, describing it as an "electronic fingerprint" that gives courts a reliable way to test whether a file has been tampered with.
Impact: Hash value is now firmly established as mandatory.
Timeline:
2005 ── Navjot Sandhu ── Certificate NOT mandatory
│
2014 ── Anvar v. Basheer ── Certificate MANDATORY
│
2018 ── Shafhi Mohammad ── Certificate relaxable
│
2020 ── Arjun Panditrao ── Certificate MANDATORY (final)
│
2024 ── BSA 2023 ── Section 63 replaces 65B
│
2026 ── SC upholds hash ── "Electronic fingerprint" confirmed
Section 63(4) Certificate: Part A & Part B Explained
Part A: To Be Filled by the Party
Part A is completed by the person who owns, maintains, manages, or operates the device. This can be:
- The litigant themselves (self-certification)
- The device owner
- A company IT administrator
- A police officer (for seized devices)
Required Information:
- Full name and address
- Device type (tick mark: Computer, Mobile, DVR, Server, Cloud, etc.)
- Make & Model
- Serial Number / IMEI / MAC address
- Declaration that device was under lawful control and operating properly
- Hash value (SHA-256 preferred)
- Signature, date, time, and place
Part B: To Be Filled by the Expert
Part B is completed by an expert who verifies the technical aspects. The BSA uses "an expert" (not "the expert"), meaning any person with relevant technical knowledge — not necessarily a court-appointed Section 39 expert.
Who Can Sign Part B?
- Cyber forensics professionals
- IT engineers
- Digital evidence specialists
- Police cyber cell officers
- Any person with technical competence in hash verification
Required Information:
- Expert's full name, designation, and address
- Device details (same as Part A)
- Hash value verification
- Technical declaration of integrity
- Signature, date, time, and place
💡 Chat2Evidence generates Part A automatically. You only need to sign it and get Part B signed by any IT professional or cyber expert.
The Schedule: Official Certificate Format
The BSA 2023 Schedule provides the only legally recognized certificate format. Any deviation risks rejection.
Key Elements of the Schedule Format:
- Header: "THE SCHEDULE [See section 63(4)(c)]"
- Part A Section: Clearly marked "(To be filled by the Party)"
- Device Checklist: Tick marks for Computer, Storage Media, DVR, Mobile, Flash Drive, CD/DVD, Server, Cloud, Other
- Ownership Declaration: Owned □ Maintained □ Managed □ Operated □
- Hash Algorithm Selection: SHA1 □ SHA256 □ MD5 □ Other □
- Part B Section: "(To be filled by the Expert)"
- Expert Verification: Same device checklist and hash declaration
Impact on WhatsApp Evidence
Before 1 July 2024 (Section 65B Era)
| Aspect | Reality |
|---|---|
| Certificate format | Generic, non-standardized |
| Smartphones | Legal grey area — "is a phone a computer?" |
| Hash values | Rarely included |
| Screenshots | Some courts accepted them with basic certification |
| Court standards | Varying across Delhi, Bombay, Madras HC |
After 1 July 2024 (Section 63 BSA Era)
| Aspect | New Reality |
|---|---|
| Certificate format | Mandatory standardized Schedule format |
| Smartphones | Explicitly covered as "communication devices" |
| Hash values | SHA-256 mandatory — not optional |
| Screenshots | Increasingly rejected — exports required |
| Court standards | Uniform nationwide — same rules everywhere |
Real-World Impact: The Dell Case (2024)
In Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Adeel Feroze, Delhi High Court (2024), a multinational company submitted WhatsApp screenshots to prove legal document delivery. The screenshots were almost certainly genuine. The court still refused to read them — because there was no certificate.
Lesson: Under Section 63 BSA, the absence of a certificate is fatal. It doesn't matter how genuine the evidence looks.
What Lawyers Need to Know
1. Update All Templates
Old Section 65B certificate templates are obsolete. Every template, form, and SOP must be updated to cite:
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (not Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
- Section 63 (not Section 65B)
- "Communication device" (not "computer")
- Part A + Part B format
2. Use New Terminology
| Old Term | New Term |
|---|---|
| Computer | Communication device |
| Section 65B | Section 63 BSA |
| Indian Evidence Act | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam |
| Single signatory | Two signatories (Part A + Part B) |
3. Include Hash Value
Every certificate must include a SHA-256 hash. MD5 and SHA-1 are technically allowed but weaker. Courts may reject them in contested matters.
4. Follow the Schedule Format
The BSA Schedule provides the only valid format. Deviations — even minor ones — can lead to rejection.
5. Advise Clients on Evidence Preservation
- Export chats immediately — don't wait
- Don't edit exported files
- Preserve the original device
- Generate hash values at the time of export
Common Mistakes in Transition
| Mistake | Why It's Wrong | Correct Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Using old Section 65B certificates | Law repealed 30 June 2024 | Use Section 63 BSA format |
| Single signature only | Two signatures mandatory | Get Part A + Part B signed |
| Missing hash value | SHA-256 now mandatory | Always include hash |
| Calling device a "computer" | Use "communication device" | Update all terminology |
| Generic certificate format | Must follow Schedule | Use standardized Part A & Part B |
| Filing certificate late | "At each instance" required | File at admissibility stage |
| Using MD5 hash | Weaker algorithm | Use SHA-256 |
Practical Scenarios: Old vs New Law
Scenario 1: WhatsApp Chat in Divorce Case
Old Law (Section 65B):
- Litigant prints screenshots
- Gets a generic certificate signed by one person
- Court may or may not accept it depending on judge
New Law (Section 63 BSA):
- Litigant exports WhatsApp chat as .txt file
- Generates SHA-256 hash
- Prepares Part A (self-signed) + Part B (expert-signed)
- Files standardized Schedule certificate
- Uniform acceptance across all courts
Scenario 2: CCTV Footage from a Shop
Old Law:
- Shopkeeper signs a basic certificate
- No hash value
- Defense challenges authenticity
New Law:
- Shopkeeper fills Part A
- Cyber expert fills Part B with hash verification
- Chain of custody documented
- Defense has no grounds to challenge technical integrity
Scenario 3: Email Evidence in Contract Dispute
Old Law:
- Printout with basic certification
- "Computer" terminology ambiguous for cloud email
New Law:
- Export with headers intact
- Part A signed by account holder
- Part B signed by IT expert verifying server logs
- "Communication device" and "cloud" explicitly covered
FAQs
No. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was repealed when the BSA 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 63 BSA now governs all electronic evidence. For fresh filings, citing Section 65B is a mistake that is already surfacing in courts.
Three changes carry real weight: 1. Two signatures instead of one — Part A (device owner) + Part B (expert) 2. Mandatory hash value — SHA-256 is the gold standard 3. "Communication device" replaces "computer" — smartphones explicitly covered
No. For evidence tendered after 1 July 2024, Section 63 BSA certificates are mandatory. Old Section 65B certificates are obsolete for new filings. The general rule is: the law in force when the evidence is tendered applies, regardless of when the case began.
A hash value is a digital fingerprint of a file. Run a file through SHA-256, and you get a unique 64-character string. Change even one pixel or one character, and the hash changes completely. Section 63 requires it so courts can verify that the record on file is bit-for-bit identical to the one that was certified.
The BSA uses "an expert" (not "the expert"), which means any person with relevant technical competence: - Cyber forensics professionals - IT engineers - Digital evidence specialists - Police cyber cell officers - Even a technically competent colleague This is distinct from a Section 39 BNS expert (court-appointed).
Yes. Recent High Court authority, including from the Andhra Pradesh High Court (2025), supports a party self-certifying WhatsApp messages on their own device for Part A. However, Part B still requires an expert signature.
Apply to the court under the Arjun Panditrao Khotkar principle. The court can summon the person in control of the device and direct them to produce the certificate. This is discretionary, so plead it early and clearly.
Yes. Section 63(3) explicitly covers cloud storage, distributed databases, and any "appropriate equipment." Data stored on Google Drive, iCloud, or WhatsApp servers is covered.
Section 248 BNS (replacing Section 193 IPC) punishes giving false evidence with imprisonment up to 7 years. Knowingly signing a false certificate is a serious offense.
For cases filed before 1 July 2024 where evidence is yet to be tendered: - Update all certificate templates to Section 63 BSA format - Add Part B (expert signature) if not already present - Generate and include SHA-256 hash values - Update court pleadings to cite BSA 2023, not IEA 1872 ---
Conclusion + Action Plan
📌 Key Takeaways
- ✅ Section 63 BSA 2023 replaced Section 65B on 1 July 2024
- ✅ Two signatures mandatory — Part A (device owner) + Part B (expert)
- ✅ SHA-256 hash is mandatory — the "electronic fingerprint"
- ✅ "Communication device" explicitly covers smartphones
- ✅ Standardized Schedule format — no deviations allowed
- ✅ Old certificates are obsolete for new filings
🎯 Your Action Plan
| For | Action | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Lawyers | Update all certificate templates to Section 63 BSA format | Immediate |
| Litigants | Export WhatsApp chats and generate Section 63 certificates | Before filing |
| Law Firms | Train staff on Part A + Part B requirements | 1 week |
| All Users | Use SHA-256, not MD5 or SHA-1 | Immediate |
💼 Need Section 63 BSA Compliant Certificates?
Chat2Evidence generates Section 63 BSA certificates with automatic SHA-256 hash, Part A format, and complete chat timeline.
🚀 Generate Your Certificate →
- Section 63 BSA Certificate Template
- How to Submit WhatsApp Evidence in Court
- WhatsApp Chat to PDF for Court
- Hindi WhatsApp Court Evidence Guide
- Are WhatsApp Chats Valid in Court?
Last Updated: August 2026 | Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes. For specific legal advice, consult a qualified advocate.