- Access the six notificiations which we have combined and archived here: [PDF]
We missed this earlier: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on July 9, designated six laboratories as authorized examiners of electronic evidence under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
Among the newly notified six units, five of the six labs will handle computer and mobile device forensics, while the Delhi-based Border Security Force’s Central Drone Forensic Lab will focus on drone forensics. The six newly notified labs are:
For drone forensics:
- Special Instruments Wing, Border Security Force, Central Drone Forensic Lab, Chhawla, Delhi.
For computer and mobile forensics:
- Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Town, Kolkata
- Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, Santacruz, Mumbai
- National Forensic Sciences University, Curti, Ponda, Goa
For computer (excluding floppy disk drive) and mobile forensics:
- Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Navy Cyber Group, New Delhi
- Cyber Forensic Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur
What is the legal basis behind: The notifications were issued under Section 79A of the IT Act, which allows the Central Government to appoint officials or institutes as the Examiners of Electronic Evidence. These expert groups give professional opinions on digital proof to courts and other authorities and therefore making them legally admissible in courts.
To ensure the authenticity of digital evidence, the Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) requires a two-part certificate to admit digital evidence such as WhatsApp chats or CCTV footage.
- Part A is completed by the party presenting the evidence, like police or the concerned investigating officer. They must declare lawful control of the device and provide a hash value, a digital fingerprint proving the file has not been altered.
- Part B must be signed by an “expert,” but the law does not define who qualifies.
“Electronic record is a unique species of evidence which is liable to continuous mutation and modification affecting its authenticity, integrity and intrinsic evidentiary value. Challenges to admissibility and probative value of electronic records are further accentuated with the advent of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. Such fast and varied transformation in technology necessitated reviewing the erstwhile Evidence Act and the BSA was enacted,” —Supreme Court in May 2026.
In the process of electronic evidence preservation, electronic fingerprinting through hashes is a necessary safeguard against deepfakes and AI-manipulated media, as acknowledged by the SC. This process is to make sure that the digital artefact is not compromised/altered/doctored/fabricated after the evidence has been admitted by the investigation officials. If the digitla evidence is already compromised or altered, then the officials may have to rely on deeper forensic analysis to prove the authenticity or inauthenticity of an evidence.
Madras HC notes the existence of only a handful official evidence examiners: While noting the Central government’s statement on having only a handful of entities, the Madras High Court ruled that only government-notified Examiners of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act could sign Part B.
“It is admitted by the Central Government that only a handful of entities have been notified till date as experts under Section 79A of the Act. It is surprising to note that no expert has been notified in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is beyond dispute that Tamil Nadu has good I.T infrastructure and skilled manpower. Since BSA has already come into force, very soon there will be a need for certificates under Section 63(4) of BSA for securing admission of electronic records. If experts are not available in Tamil Nadu, that would result in denial of the right of access to justice which is a fundamental right.” – Madras HC in October 2024
Later, The Pune Bar Association challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing it was unfair to ordinary litigants as the authorisations from government-approved entities might delay the proceedings. In its judgement, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the hash-value and expert-signed authorisations for the evidence highlighted by Madras HC.
However, the SC didn’t put a legal binding status on who can sign Part B. The SC suggested, without legal binding authority, that if a particular court is satisfied that a private individual has genuine expertise in computer science or cyber forensics, that person may sign Part B.
“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,“ – Supreme Court (May 2026).
Popular cases where the expert reports under the Evidence Act (precursor to the BSA), were relevant:
Also Read:
