How courts examine handwriting and electronic signatures?

How courts examine handwriting and electronic signatures? This question is crucial in the age of digital transactions and legal disputes. Courts in India examine handwriting and electronic signatures under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), drawing upon principles and procedures largely carried over or adapted from the repealed Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

How courts examine handwriting and electronic signatures?

Examination of Handwriting and Traditional Signatures:

Requirement of Proof:

If a document is alleged to be signed or written wholly or in part by a specific person, the signature or handwriting must be proved to be in that person’s hand. This proof is required for unattested documents, except when judicial notice is taken of official signatures.

Methods of Proof:

There are several ways to prove handwriting or signature:

• Calling the Writer: The person alleged to have written or signed the document can be called as a witness.
  
• Expert Opinion: The opinion of experts is a relevant fact when the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom a document was written or signed. The scope for expert opinions under the BSA has been expanded to include “any other field”.
  
• Witness Familiar with Handwriting: The opinion of a witness who is familiar with the handwriting of the alleged writer is also a relevant fact. A person is considered acquainted with another’s handwriting if they have seen them write, received documents purporting to be written by them in response to their own correspondence, or habitually seen documents purporting to be written by that person in the ordinary course of business.
  
• Comparison by the Court: The Court is empowered to compare a disputed signature, writing, or seal with any signature, writing, or seal that has been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person. The court can also direct any person present in court to write words or figures for the purpose of comparison. This process under BSA Section 72 corresponds to the previous IEA Section 73.
  
• Admission of the Party: The execution of a document can be proved by the admission of the party against whom the document is tendered.
  
• Judicial Caution in Comparison: While the law allows the court to compare handwriting itself, judicial pronouncements under the corresponding previous law (IEA Section 73) suggest that it is not proper for the court to rely solely on its own comparison without the aid of an expert’s evidence. Prudence demands that such disputed handwriting or signature is referred to an expert, and their opinion and evidence are considered.
  

Examination of Electronic and Digital Signatures:

Requirement of Proof:

Except in the case of a secure electronic signature, if an electronic signature is alleged to have been affixed by a subscriber, the fact that such electronic signature is that of the subscriber must be proved.

Admissibility of Electronic Records:

The BSA clarifies that the admissibility of an electronic or digital record shall not be denied merely because it is in that form. Such records are given the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as other documents, subject to the conditions in Section 63.

Proof of Contents and Admissibility Conditions (Section 63):

The contents of electronic records are primarily proved according to the provisions of BSA Section 63. This section lays down specific conditions for information contained in electronic records (printed on paper, stored on optical/magnetic media, semiconductor memory, etc. – referred to as “computer output”) to be deemed a document and admissible in evidence without further proof of the original.

The conditions relate to:

• The regular use of the computer or communication device
  
• The regular feeding of information
  
• The proper functioning of the device
  
• The information in the record being derived from such regular feeding
  

Certificate Requirement:

A key procedural requirement for admitting a statement (information) in evidence under Section 63 is the submission of a certificate along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission.

• The certificate must identify the record, describe how it was produced (including particulars of the device), and deal with the conditions for admissibility.
  
• Crucially, this certificate must be signed by a person in charge of the device or activities AND an expert.
  
• The certificate itself is evidence of the matters stated within it.
  

Previous case law under the IEA (Section 65B(4)) had introduced flexibility, noting that requiring a certificate might not be mandatory when the party producing the evidence was not in possession of the device from which it originated, and in such cases, secondary evidence rules under the general Section 65 (now Section 60 in BSA) could be invoked.

The applicability of the certificate requirement, being procedural, could be relaxed where justice justifies it. While the BSA’s wording in Section 63(4) is stringent about the requirement at “each instance” and the need for an expert’s signature, the principle that a party not in control of the device should not be denied justice due to inability to secure the certificate may remain a consideration for courts.

Verification of Digital Signature (Section 73):

Specifically for digital signatures, the court can:

• Direct production of the Digital Signature Certificate
  
• Order verification using the public key listed in the certificate
  

This process under BSA Section 73 corresponds to the previous IEA Section 73A.

Expert Opinion:

The opinion of experts is relevant for electronic matters. The opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence (as referred to in the Information Technology Act, 2000) is specifically designated as a relevant fact and an expert opinion when the court needs to form an opinion on information transmitted or stored in electronic or digital form.

Certifying Authority Opinion:

When the court needs to form an opinion on the electronic signature of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which issued the Electronic Signature Certificate is a relevant fact.

Presumptions:

The BSA includes several presumptions related to electronic evidence and signatures:

• The court shall presume the genuineness of electronic/digital records purporting to be the Official Gazette or directed by law to be kept, if produced from proper custody.
  
• The court shall presume that electronic records purporting to be agreements containing electronic/digital signatures were concluded by affixing those signatures.
  
• For secure electronic records, the court shall presume they have not been altered since obtaining secure status.
  
• For secure electronic signatures, the court shall presume they were affixed by the subscriber with the intention of signing or approving the record.
  (Note: This specific presumption does not create a presumption regarding the authenticity or integrity of non-secure electronic records or signatures).
  
• The court shall presume the correctness of information in an Electronic Signature Certificate, unless it’s unverified subscriber information that was accepted.
  
• For electronic records purporting or proved to be five years old and produced from proper custody, the court may presume the electronic signature was affixed by the person or someone authorised.
  

In Summary:

For traditional handwriting and signatures, courts rely on:

• Witness testimony (writer, acquainted person)
  
• Expert opinions
  
• Party admissions
  
• Their own comparison powers
  

All guided by prudence to seek expert assistance in complex comparisons.

For electronic and digital signatures, the process involves:

• Specific rules for admissibility (primarily BSA Section 63)
  
• Certificate signed by a person in charge and an expert
  
• Opinions from experts (including Examiner of Electronic Evidence) and Certifying Authorities
  
• Court-directed verification steps for digital signatures
  
• Several statutory presumptions regarding authenticity and integrity of electronic records and signatures, especially secure ones.
  

🚨 Legal Framework & Judicial Interpretation

1. Handwriting and Traditional Signatures

• Expert opinion is a “relevant fact” under Section 39(2) BSA (formerly Section 45 IEA)
  
• In C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025):
  
  
  “Proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.”
  
  
• Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980): Handwriting analysis is imperfect and needs corroboration
  
• Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha (2022): Other forms of evidence like witness testimony or admissions can prove handwriting
  

2. Electronic and Digital Signatures

• Sections 61–63 BSA equate electronic records with physical ones
  
• Section 63(4) requires a certificate signed by both:
  
  • Device handler
    
  • Expert (Examiner of Electronic Evidence under IT Act, 2000)
    
• Hash value of record must be specified in the certificate
  
• Courts no longer distinguish between primary and secondary evidence for digital records—certified digital copies are considered primary
  
• Landmark precedents:
  
  • Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
    
  • Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Gorantryal
    
  • Shafhi Mohammad
    

✅ Key Judicial Takeaways

Read More: Expert Opinions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

What are the Presumptions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)?

❓ FAQs: Common Questions to Drive Organic Traffic

Q1. Can a court convict based solely on handwriting expert opinion?

Answer: No. While expert testimony under BSA §39 is admissible, courts must scrutinize the reasoning. C. Kamalakkannan warns that handwriting analysis is fallible and may need corroboration.

Q2. What if the writer is not available as a witness?

Answer: The court may rely on:

• Testimony from persons familiar with the handwriting
  
• Expert analysis
  
• Admission by the party
  
• Fresh sample writing by a person in court for comparison
  

Q3. Is a scanned email or WhatsApp screenshot admissible?

Answer: Yes—if accompanied by a Section 63 certificate, signed by the custodian and expert, specifying creation, storage, hash, and integrity.

Q4. What if I can’t obtain the certificate (e.g. device is unavailable)?

Answer: For pre-BSA cases, courts have relaxed the requirement (e.g. Shafhi Mohammad, Arjun Panditrao).
For post-BSA cases, compliance is mandatory unless procedural justice allows leniency.

Q5. How does the court verify a digital signature?

Answer: Under BSA §73, the court may:

• Require the Digital Signature Certificate
  
• Use the public key for verification
  
• Accept expert opinion from the Certifying Authority or Examiner of Electronic Evidence
  

Q6. Are copies of electronic evidence treated differently from originals?

Answer: No. Under BSA, properly certified digital copies = primary evidence. There is no longer a primary/secondary distinction for such records.