BSA 63 Certificate for Screenshots: Is Expert Certification Required if Phone Owner Already Certified?

In today's digital age, screenshots from mobile phones often serve as crucial evidence in legal disputes, from criminal cases to civil litigation. But a pressing question arises: Is a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) required by an expert in case of a screenshot where already the person in whose phone the screenshot was taken has given a certificate under 63 BSA?

This issue touches on the admissibility of electronic records under Indian law, balancing technological realities with evidentiary safeguards. While Section 63 BSA (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) mandates certification for authenticity, courts have provided nuanced guidance. This post breaks down the legal framework, key judgments, and practical insights to help you navigate this terrain. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Understanding the Legal Framework for Electronic Evidence

Electronic records, including screenshots, are governed by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of BSA, 2023), which requires a certificate to prove authenticity and integrity. The certificate must be signed by a person in a responsible position related to the device's operation. As clarified in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), electronic records are inadmissible without this certificate, overruling earlier lenient views like in Navjot Sandhu

State vs Jaideep - Delhi (2018)

The Supreme Court emphasized: Sections 65A and 65B are the exclusive provisions governing electronic records, making certification mandatory at the time of production 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32. This applies retrospectively, impacting ongoing and past cases 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1331.

Under BSA 2023, Section 63(4) mirrors this, stating that a certificate by a person in charge shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4962. For screenshots, courts routinely note certificates under Section 63 BSA, as seen in cases involving photographs: Certificate u/s 63 of BSA produced for restaurant photos 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 10507.

Key Requirements of the Certificate

• Signed by a responsible person (e.g., device owner or manager).
• Confirms the device's condition, accuracy, and how the record was produced.
• Ideally obtained at the time of generation 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32.

Does Prior Certification by Phone Owner Suffice?

If the phone owner has already provided a Section 63 BSA certificate for the screenshot, does this eliminate the need for an expert certificate? Generally, no—it depends on context, challenges, and availability of original data.

• Initial Proof: A phone owner's certificate offers prima facie authenticity, but it doesn't automatically satisfy Section 63 if challenged or if original hardware/data is unavailable 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32.
• Not a Substitute: Courts stress certification at collection time; prior ones may not exempt further compliance 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32.

In Arjun Panditrao, defective certificates led courts to summon responsible persons, but evidence remains inadmissible without proper compliance 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32. For screenshots specifically, a Delhi High Court case allowed time to file a Section 63(4)(c) BSA certificate for a screenshot in plaint evidence 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 33036. This shows flexibility but underscores the ongoing need.

Other instances confirm: Electricity bills and tax receipts with Certificate u/s 63 (4) (c) of BSA, 2023 filed, highlighting routine application to digital prints 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56175.

When Original Data or Device Is Unavailable

Challenges intensify if the phone or original data is gone:- Courts scrutinize prior certifications closely.- Subsequent Certification Allowed: Fresh certificates may be obtained during trial if transparent and credible 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32.

The Karnataka High Court in M.H Faisal v. State (2022) permitted a Section 65B certificate at the appellate stage when initial ones were absent 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32. Similarly, in NDPS bail matters, screenshots required clarification via Form 15, tying back to device authenticity 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 186.

For CCTV screenshots, detailed timestamps and identifications were noted without mandating extra expert certs if basics were met 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1892. However, in forgery disputes over transfer certificates, deeper verification was needed beyond initial docs 2011 0 Supreme(All) 157.

Role of Experts

• Experts aren't always required; the responsible person (often the owner) suffices.
• But if authenticity is disputed, courts may order expert analysis for electronic devices 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1955.
• In tax assessments, Section 65B doesn't strictly apply, allowing looser electronic use 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4962.

Practical and Procedural Tips

• Prosecution/Plaintiff Duty: Provide all evidence, including certificates, upfront. Accused can object if deficient

  State vs Jaideep - Delhi (2018)

  .
• Court Discretion: Summon persons for certificates or admit with caution/expert testimony 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32.
• Best Practices:
• Obtain certificate immediately upon screenshot capture.
• Preserve device chain of custody.
• File supplementary certificates if needed, as in I.A. for time extension 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 33036.

In probate-like matters, legal heirship docs with BSA certificates sufficed without extra expert input 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56175.

Judicial Trends and BSA 2023 Updates

Post-BSA 2023, Section 63 streamlines: Purporting to be signed by a person in charge... an expert shall be evidence 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4962. Courts reject rigid bars on late evidence if genuineness can be ensured without re-investigation 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1955.

In a recent case, prosecution could summon witnesses for electronic evidence under CrPC 311, prioritizing fair trials 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1955.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

While a phone owner's Section 63 BSA certificate provides strong initial support for screenshots, it typically does not eliminate the need for full compliance, especially if challenged or originals are unavailable. Courts may permit supplementary or expert certifications at later stages, subject to discretion 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32

State vs Jaideep - Delhi (2018)

Key Takeaways:- Certification is mandatory but flexible in timing.- Prior owner certs help but aren't foolproof.- Preserve originals; seek expert input if disputed.- BSA 2023 maintains safeguards while adapting to digital norms.

Stay compliant to avoid inadmissibility risks. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.

References:- 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32

State vs Jaideep - Delhi (2018)