Supreme Court Clarifies That Part B of BSA Certificate Need Not Be Restricted Only to Section 79A Notified Examiners

 We have perused the cited judgment, wherein the Madras High Court, in a matrimonial case instituted in 2019 inter alia held that the same would be governed by the erstwhile Evidence Act. Thereafter, it proceeded to analyse Part B of the Schedule in Section 63(4) to hold that the certificate by an expert therein must be by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act. In doing so, the High Court merely referred to Section 39(2) of the BSA and not sub-section (1). Section 39 deals with admissibility of opinions of experts. Sub-section (1) states when the Court has to form an opinion on a point of foreign law, science or art or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion on that point of persons having special skill in such domain namely foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in respect of identity of handwriting or finger impressions becomes a relevant fact. Subsection (2) provides when in a proceeding, the Court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act shall be treated to be that of an expert and be admissible as a relevant fact. {Para 6}

7. If the two sub-sections are read harmoniously, it is possible to hold, in addition to entities notified as Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A, if the Court is satisfied, on the basis of unimpeachable material, that any other person has special skill and expertise in computer science and cyber forensics, opinion of such person may be held relevant as an expert with regard to electronic/digital record and such person may sign Part B of the Schedule as an expert. We are further fortified to make such observation as sub-section (2) of Section 39 (unlike 63(4) and erstwhile 65B) is not prefaced by a non-obstante clause so as to exclude the operation of sub-section (1) from the arena of electronic records. The High Court had deferred adjudication of such issue and directed the State to notify adequate number of persons under Section 79A. Under these circumstances, we hold that the finding of the High Court that Part B must be filled up by an expert notified under Section 79A of the IT Act shall not be treated as a binding precedent.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.599 OF 2026

Pune Bar Association Vs  Union of India and Others 

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page