A screenshot is not proof. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a WhatsApp chat, email, CCTV clip or call recording becomes usable evidence in an Indian court only when it arrives with the correct certificate, and judges routinely throw out digital records that come without one.

Use this as a tick-box before you hand anything to your lawyer.

1. Identify the record. Name the exact file, its format and what it contains (for example, a WhatsApp chat export of 14 messages dated 3 March 2026).
2. Describe how it was produced. State how the file was created or extracted, for example exported from WhatsApp on a specific phone, or copied from a CCTV digital video recorder.
3. Give the device particulars. Make, model, IMEI or serial number, and the role the device played in producing the record.
4. Address the section 63(2) conditions. Confirm the device was in regular use, was working properly, and that the information was fed in the ordinary course of activity.
5. State the hash value and algorithm. Record the hash (for example a SHA-256 value) of the file so any later tampering can be detected.
6. Part A signature. Signed by the person lawfully in charge of the computer or communication device, that is, the party producing the record.
7. Part B signature. Signed by an expert who validates the technical particulars. This dual signature is new and did not exist under the old law.
8. Attach it each time. A fresh certificate must travel with the record at every stage it is filed or relied upon.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024. The old section 65B is now section 63 BSA. The idea is unchanged: a computer output (a printout, an exported chat, a copied video) is admissible only if you satisfy the section conditions and file the certificate.

What is genuinely new is the two-part certificate in the Schedule referred to in section 63(4)©. Part A is signed by the person in charge of the device. Part B is signed by an expert. The Schedule also requires the hash value and the algorithm used, so the court can confirm the file was not altered after it was exported.

Section 63 BSA controls the admissibility of electronic and digital records. Under section 63(4), a certificate must accompany the electronic record each time it is submitted; it must identify the record, describe how it was produced, give particulars of the device, and deal with the conditions in section 63(2).

The certificate rule is not new in spirit. The Supreme Court, interpreting the old section 65B, held the certificate to be mandatory in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473. After a brief period of conflicting rulings, a three-judge bench settled the law in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, holding that the certificate is a condition precedent to admitting electronic evidence. That reasoning carries directly into section 63 BSA. The one practical relief both judgments recognised is that if you produce the original device itself (the actual phone or recorder), the secondary-copy certificate may not be needed.

This matters far beyond criminal cases. The same certificate logic decides whether your screenshots help you in a consumer complaint, a cheque-bounce case, a tenancy dispute or a service matter. Emailed replies you obtain through our RTI Wiki and later rely on in court are themselves electronic records.

1. Preserve the original. Do not delete the source. Keep the original phone, SIM, email account or CCTV recorder safe and switched off from further edits.
2. Export cleanly. Export the WhatsApp chat (use the built-in export feature), download the full email with headers, or copy the CCTV clip with its timestamp intact.
3. Generate the hash. Compute the SHA-256 hash of the exported file and note it down, locking it against later tampering claims.
4. Fill Part A. As the person in charge of the device, complete Part A with the device particulars and section 63(2) confirmations.
5. Get Part B from an expert. Have a qualified expert verify the technical details and sign Part B, including the hash and algorithm.
6. File with the record. Submit the certificate physically attached to the printout or storage media, and keep spare signed copies for later stages.
7. Re-file when needed. If the record is produced again at trial or appeal, attach a fresh certificate.

Rahul, a tenant in Pune, paid his rent and a refundable deposit of ₹45,000. When he vacated, the landlord refused to return the deposit and claimed Rahul never asked for it. Rahul had a clear WhatsApp thread: the landlord writing “I will return the ₹45,000 next week” and later “deposit done, will transfer Friday”.

Rahul first filed only screenshots. The opposing lawyer objected that there was no section 63 certificate, and the court declined to read the screenshots as proof. Rahul then did it properly. He exported the full chat from his own phone, generated a SHA-256 hash of the export, completed Part A as the person in charge of his phone (giving the make, model and IMEI and confirming the phone was in regular working use), and obtained an expert Part B confirming the hash and that the export was unaltered. With the section 63(4) certificate attached, the chat was admitted, and the landlord could no longer pretend the promise was never made.

The lesson: the messages did not change between the two attempts. Only the certificate decided whether the court could see them.

• Filing bare screenshots. Screenshots without a section 63(4) certificate are routinely refused.
• Skipping Part B. Many people sign Part A and forget the expert Part B. Both are required under the Schedule.
• No hash value. Leaving out the hash invites a tampering objection you cannot answer.
• Editing the original. Cropping, forwarding or re-saving the file breaks the chain and the hash will not match.
• One certificate for all stages. A fresh certificate is needed each time the record is produced.

Yes. A WhatsApp chat is an electronic record. To use it in court you must file it with a certificate under section 63(4) BSA, with Part A and Part B signed and the hash value stated.

Part A is signed by the person in charge of the device that produced the record. Part B is signed by an expert who validates the technical particulars, including the hash and the algorithm used.

Yes. The Supreme Court held the equivalent certificate mandatory in Anvar P.V. (2014) and confirmed it as a condition precedent in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020). The same rule applies under section 63 BSA.

If you produce the original device itself, the secondary-copy certificate may not be required, because the court is looking at the source rather than a copy. Keep the device safe and unaltered.

A hash, such as a SHA-256 value, is a digital fingerprint of the file. If even one bit changes, the hash changes. Recording it lets the court confirm the file was not tampered with after it was produced.

You can prepare Part A yourself as the person in charge of the device, but Part B needs a qualified expert. It is wise to have your lawyer review the full certificate before filing. For a deeper walkthrough of court procedure, see The RTI Playbook.

Preserve your original device, export the file cleanly, compute and record the hash, then complete both parts of the section 63(4) certificate before you file. If your matter also involves chasing official records or filing related applications, our AI RTI Drafter can help you draft requests, and if you are facing a connected criminal allegation you may want to read about anticipatory bail under BNSS.

Sources: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, section 63 and the Schedule under section 63(4)© (indiacode.nic.in); Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1. This article is general legal information, not legal advice; consult a qualified advocate for your specific case.