Inclusion Of Hash Value In Electronic Record Certificates Is Essential For Data Integrity; Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court

"Hash value of an electronic data is synonymous with an electronic fingerprint and provides a sure way of identifying and verifying digital data," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that the requirement to disclose hash values for the admissibility of electronic records under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is constitutional and provides a vital layer of data integrity.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that such technical safeguards are necessary to counter challenges posed by artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. The Court clarified that these prerequisites ensure the authenticity of digital evidence in an era where physical documents are increasingly being replaced by electronic ones.

The Pune Bar Association filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 63(4) of the BSA, read with its Schedule. The Petitioner contended that the mandatory disclosure of hash values in Part A of the certificate and the requirement for an expert's signature in Part B imposed an "undue hardship" on ordinary litigants. It was argued that these conditions were extremely onerous, rendered the provision manifestly arbitrary, and created significant barriers to the admissibility of routine electronic evidence like emails and audiovisual clips.

The primary question before the Court was whether the mandatory requirement of disclosing hash values and obtaining expert certification under Section 63(4) of the BSA is unconstitutional or arbitrary. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the "expert" mentioned in Part B of the Schedule is strictly limited to examiners notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Court Highlights Significance Of Digital Evidence In Modern Litigation

The Court began by noting that the advancement of technology has caused the digital space to encroach upon all spheres of human life, making electronic records commonplace in litigation. The Bench observed that physical documents are being replaced by digital records such as electronic mails and audiovisual clips, which necessitated the transition from the erstwhile Section 65B of the Evidence Act to the more robust Section 63(4) of the BSA.

Hash Value Acts As An 'Electronic Fingerprint' To Ensure Integrity

Addressing the technical requirements of the new law, the Court emphasized that electronic records are a unique species of evidence liable to continuous mutation and modification. Such transformations affect the authenticity and intrinsic evidentiary value of the data. The Bench noted that the advent of artificial intelligence and deepfakes has further accentuated the challenges to the probative value of digital evidence, necessitating stricter verification methods.

Hash Value Is Synonymous With An Electronic Fingerprint

The Court explained that the "hash value of an electronic data is synonymous with an electronic fingerprint and provides a sure way of identifying and verifying digital data." The Bench held that the necessity of incorporating this value in the certificate is to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the record. Consequently, the provision cannot be said to lack a rational nexus with the object of the Act.

Rational Nexus Between Technical Safeguards And The Object Of BSA

Regarding the Petitioner's claim of manifest arbitrariness, the Court held that providing an additional layer of authenticity to secondary electronic evidence is a legitimate legislative goal. "We are of the considered view that the new provision has a clear and rational nexus with the object of the law and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable so as to suffer from the vice of manifest arbitrariness," the Bench observed.

Court Clarifies Scope Of 'Expert' Under Section 39 Of BSA

The Court also addressed a specific concern regarding who can sign Part B of the Schedule as an expert. The Petitioner, citing a Madras High Court judgment, argued that only a handful of government-notified examiners under Section 79A of the IT Act could provide such certificates. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this narrow interpretation, pointing out that Section 39 of the BSA deals with the admissibility of expert opinions in a broader sense.

Harmonious Construction Of Section 39(1) And 39(2) Of BSA

The Bench held that if the two sub-sections of Section 39 are read harmoniously, the Court can accept the opinion of any person with special skills in computer science and cyber forensics. While Section 39(2) specifically mentions the Examiner of Electronic Evidence under the IT Act, it is not prefaced by a non-obstante clause that excludes the general provision for experts under Section 39(1).

Other Cyber Forensics Experts Can Sign Part B Of The Certificate

The Court clarified that if a court is satisfied with the unimpeachable material regarding a person’s special skills in computer science, that person may sign Part B of the Schedule as an expert. This interpretation ensures that the implementation of the law does not become "illusory" due to a shortage of government-notified experts. The Bench explicitly stated that the Madras High Court’s finding that only Section 79A IT Act experts can fill Part B shall not be treated as a binding precedent.

The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition while keeping the specific question of law open for a future conclusive determination if necessary. The Bench refused to admit the matter or issue notice to the Union of India, concluding that the challenged provisions are neither arbitrary nor unjust. The ruling reinforces the necessity of technical metadata like hash values in preserving the sanctity of the Indian judicial process in the digital age.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2026