Question

Which of the following is not stated in Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with regard to a certificate to verify the authenticity of electronic evidence?

• A. Signed by both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and an expert, with the certificate adhering to the format prescribed in the Adhiniyam's Schedule.
• B. The form specified in the Schedule requires that electronic evidence be accompanied by a 'hash value'.
• C. Qualification of an expert.
• D. None of the above

Hint:

For electronic evidence, remember the three keywords: \[ \boxed{\text{Certificate + Signature + Hash Value}} \] These are far more important than the personal qualifications of the certifier.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

A useful way to sort through this provision is to separate what Section 63(4) is trying to authenticate from what it is not trying to regulate at all.

1. What the certificate authenticates: The certificate exists to vouch for the reliability of the electronic record itself, covering matters like how the record was produced, whether the device operated properly, and technical markers such as a hash value that confirm the record has not been tampered with. It also requires the certificate to be signed by the person operating the device (and an expert, where relevant) in the prescribed Schedule format.
2. What falls within this authentication scheme: Both the requirement of signatures with the Schedule format, and the requirement of a hash value in that format, sit squarely within this authentication purpose, since they are both aimed at proving the record's genuineness and integrity.
3. What falls outside this scheme: The personal qualifications, degrees, or professional credentials of the expert who signs the certificate are a matter of that person's competence, not of the record's authenticity. Section 63(4) simply does not extend to prescribing or requiring proof of an expert's qualifications as part of the certificate.
4. Ruling out "none of the above": Because the qualification of an expert genuinely falls outside what this authentication-focused provision covers, there is a real gap here, so the "none of the above" option does not apply.

Since the provision is built entirely around authenticating the record rather than credentialing the expert, the requirement not found in Section 63(4) is the qualification of an expert, which is the correct answer.

Answer 2

Since Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam closely carries forward the earlier certificate requirement for electronic records from the predecessor evidence law, comparing the two can also confirm what the current provision does and does not require.

1. Carried-forward requirements: The earlier provision required a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing the manner of its production, describing the device involved, and satisfying the conditions relating to its production, along with a signature from the person occupying a responsible position in relation to the device. The current provision continues this scheme and, in its prescribed Schedule format, adds a hash value as a technical safeguard for integrity. Both the "signed with Schedule format" requirement and the "hash value" requirement track this carried-forward and updated scheme.
2. What was never part of this scheme: At no point, either under the earlier law or under the current Adhiniyam, has the certificate requirement extended to listing or verifying the personal qualifications of any expert involved; the focus has consistently stayed on the record's own authenticity rather than the credentials of the person certifying it.
3. Applying this to the options: Since signatures with the Schedule format and the hash value both belong to the carried-forward authentication scheme, they are requirements the section does state. The expert's qualification was never part of this scheme, so it remains the one item genuinely missing from Section 63(4).
4. On "none of the above": Since a genuine omission does exist, namely the expert's qualification, this final residual option is not correct.

Comparing the current provision with its historical structure confirms that the qualification of an expert is the one item never required, making it the correct answer to what is not stated in Section 63(4).