Forensic Law & Digital Forensics
Delhi High Court Seeks Centre, NALSA Response on Free Forensic Assistance for Electronic Evidence
A Delhi HC division bench has flagged a gap that many forensic science students will recognise instantly: the law demands expert certification for electronic evidence, but there is no institutional mechanism to get that expertise to litigants who cannot pay for it.
Budding Forensic Expert Desk | Forensic Law Coverage | Reported: 23 August 2026 | Hearing date: 19 August 2026, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court has asked the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Central Government to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raises a question with direct forensic-science consequences: what happens when a person has electronic evidence relevant to their case but cannot afford the forensic expert whose certification the law requires before that evidence can be used in court? (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026; Bar & Bench, Aug 19, 2026)
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice on 19 August 2026 in Zeeshan Ekhlaque & Anr. v. National Legal Services Authority & Ors., a plea filed by advocates Zeeshan Ekhlaque and Aman Bhide through Advocate Md Imran Ahmad. (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026; Bar & Bench, Aug 19, 2026) The petition centres on Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) — India's current statutory framework for admitting electronic records as evidence — and asks the Court to direct that a structured mechanism be created so that legal-aid beneficiaries can access forensic expert examination without bearing the private cost themselves. (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026)
Important legal distinction
The Delhi High Court has issued notice and sought responses — it has not ordered a nationwide free-forensic-assistance scheme. NALSA has been asked to examine the issue and place a possible scheme before the Court; the Centre's Ministries of Law & Justice and Home Affairs have also been asked to respond. The matter has been listed for further hearing in October 2026. (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026; PTI/The New Indian Express, Aug 23, 2026)
What Did the Delhi High Court Say?
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia (Division Bench).
Case: Zeeshan Ekhlaque & Anr. v. National Legal Services Authority & Ors.
Filed by: Advocates Zeeshan Ekhlaque and Aman Bhide, through Advocate Md Imran Ahmad.
Respondents noticed: NALSA, and the Union Ministries of Law & Justice and Home Affairs.
Next listing: October 2026 (exact date not specified in the reports reviewed for this article).
(LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026; Bar & Bench, Aug 19, 2026; PTI/The New Indian Express, Aug 23, 2026)
According to the petition, the Bench observed — on a prima facie basis — that a disadvantaged person's inability to produce evidence in compliance with Section 63 of the BSA could impinge on their right of access to justice, and it directed NALSA to consider the concern and place a possible scheme before the Court. (PTI/The New Indian Express, Aug 23, 2026)
The petition also states that NALSA, responding to an RTI application, had confirmed there is presently no provision for expert assistance available to persons entitled to free legal aid for preparing the Section 63 certificate. (PTI/The New Indian Express, Aug 23, 2026) The petitioners have clarified that they are not merely asking for help filling out a form — they are asking for access to the technical examination of the electronic record and the device itself, which the law requires an expert to certify. (Bar & Bench, Aug 19, 2026)
Why Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Matters
Section 63 of the BSA, 2023 is the successor to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and it governs how electronic records are admitted as evidence in Indian courts. The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024. (Naavi.org)
The section deems electronic information — stored, recorded, or copied on a computer, optical or magnetic media, or a communication device — to be a "document," provided the conditions set out in the section are satisfied, such as the record being produced by a device in regular use and operating properly at the relevant time. (RKDewan & Co.)
A key procedural addition in the BSA is the certificate format prescribed in the Schedule to the Act. Unlike the old Section 65B certificate, the Section 63 certificate has two parts:
- Part A — completed by the person who has lawful control over the electronic record or device, covering identification of the record and the device that produced it.
- Part B — completed by an expert, addressing the technical matters connected with how the record was produced and its integrity. (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026; LiveLaw Articles, "How To Fulfill Requirements...")
Admissibility ≠ Proof
These are two different legal ideas that are easy to conflate. Admissibility is the threshold question of whether a court may even look at a piece of electronic evidence. Proof/authentication is the separate, deeper question of whether that evidence is reliable, unaltered, and what it is claimed to be. Simply possessing a WhatsApp message, a video, an email, or a photo file does not, on its own, establish either — Section 63 compliance is what lets the record clear the admissibility threshold in the first place.
This is precisely where the PIL's concern arises: Part B requires an expert, and forensic experts are not free. A litigant who can privately engage one has a path to compliance. A litigant relying entirely on free legal aid, under the current framework as described in the petition, may not.
What Is a Digital Forensic Expert?
In the context most relevant here, a digital forensic expert is a professional trained to examine electronic records and the devices that produced them, and to explain — in a manner a court can rely on — how that record came to exist and whether it remains intact. Depending on the case, this work can include:
- Acquisition and preservation — capturing data without altering the original source.
- Forensic imaging and hashing — creating a verified, bit-for-bit copy and generating a cryptographic hash value to demonstrate integrity.
- Metadata and file-system analysis — examining the data that describes the data (timestamps, device identifiers, application logs).
- Mobile-device and computer extraction — retrieving records from phones, laptops, and storage media.
- Deleted-data recovery and timeline reconstruction — where relevant and legally permissible.
- Authentication and manipulation assessment — evaluating whether a record is consistent with what it claims to be.
- Report preparation and expert testimony — putting findings into a form a court can evaluate and, where necessary, defending that analysis under cross-examination.
Not every piece of digital evidence needs this full treatment. The level of examination required depends on the nature of the evidence, what is in dispute, the applicable law, and how the court chooses to proceed in a given case. The PIL's concern is narrower and more specific: it is about the subset of cases where Section 63(4)'s Part B genuinely requires expert examination, and about what happens when the litigant cannot pay for it.
The Access-to-Justice Problem
Picture a domestic-violence survivor with threatening WhatsApp messages, a tenant with CCTV footage of a dispute, or an accused person with call records that establish an alibi. In each case, the evidence exists. What the petitioners argue is missing, for those who cannot pay privately, is the institutional pathway to get that evidence certified in a form the court can act on. (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026)
This creates a gap between evidence availability and evidence usability. A person may hold, in their own hands, the exact material that would decide their case — and still be unable to use it, not because the evidence is weak, but because the statutory gateway to admitting it requires a resource they cannot access. The petition frames this as a problem that strikes precisely at the group the legal-aid framework exists to protect. (LiveLaw, Aug 19, 2026)
Why Digital Evidence Is Different From Ordinary Documentary Evidence
A paper document is, largely, what it appears to be on its face. Electronic evidence is layered — what is visible on a screen is only the surface of a longer technical chain:
Visible content → file → metadata → device → operating system → application → storage → timestamps → logs → network / cloud environment
Take a simple example: a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation. It looks self-explanatory — text, a name, a timestamp. But from a forensic standpoint, several questions remain open before that screenshot can safely anchor a legal claim:
- Where did the screenshot originate, and is the underlying device still available for examination?
- Has the content been altered, edited, or reconstructed at any stage?
- Does the messaging application's own database contain records that correspond to what the screenshot shows?
- Are the displayed timestamps internally consistent with the device and application logs?
- Is there metadata to support the file's claimed origin?
- Is the evidence complete, or has content been selectively captured?
This is exactly the kind of examination Part B of the Section 63 certificate contemplates — and exactly the kind of work that requires trained forensic expertise, not just a lawyer's affidavit.
What Could a Free Forensic-Assistance Framework Look Like?
Analysis / Speculation — not an announced policy
Nothing below is a confirmed government scheme. The Delhi HC has only directed NALSA to consider a possible scheme; what follows is a discussion of models NALSA or the Centre could plausibly explore, based on how legal-aid frameworks operate elsewhere.
Model A — Legal Services Authority Referral
Eligible litigants are referred by DLSAs/SLSAs to empanelled digital-forensics professionals on a case-by-case basis.
Model B — Panel of Certified Experts
NALSA or State Legal Services Authorities maintain a standing panel of vetted, qualified experts available to legal-aid beneficiaries.
Model C — Government Forensic Laboratory Assistance
Eligible cases are routed to designated government forensic science laboratories for Part B examination and certification.
Model D — University Forensic-Lab Partnerships
Approved university forensic-science departments with suitable facilities support legal-aid cases under supervision.
Model E — Tiered Assistance
Routine matters receive basic certification support; complex or contested examinations are escalated to full forensic analysis.
Who Could Benefit?
If such a mechanism eventually takes shape, the petition's framing suggests it would primarily serve economically disadvantaged litigants who already qualify for free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — a category that can include accused persons, victims, complainants, and civil or family-law litigants who rely on electronic evidence. No eligibility criteria have been announced, and any final scope would depend on whatever scheme NALSA and the Centre eventually place before the Court.
Forensic Science Perspective
For forensic science as a discipline, this PIL is a useful marker of where the field is heading in India. Investigations and litigation increasingly draw on a combined evidence base — digital, physical, biological, and documentary — rather than any single category. Digital forensics, once a specialised sub-field, is steadily becoming a routine, load-bearing component of case preparation across criminal, civil, matrimonial, and commercial matters, precisely because so much human activity now leaves an electronic trace.
Implications for Digital Forensics in India
Potential, not confirmed
The points below are possible long-term implications if a workable framework eventually emerges from this proceeding — they are not outcomes the Court has ordered.
- Increased demand for trained digital-forensics experts, including at the entry and mid-career level.
- Pressure toward clearer, more consistent standards for what counts as adequate Section 63 examination.
- Greater institutional emphasis on evidence preservation practices among police, lawyers, and litigants.
- Expanded reliance on government forensic laboratories for legal-aid referrals.
- Possible development of formal expert panels under NALSA or State Legal Services Authorities.
- Stronger, more standardised forensic reporting formats aligned to Section 63's Schedule.
- Better working coordination between lawyers, investigators, courts, and forensic professionals.
Challenges
Even if NALSA proposes a scheme, several practical obstacles would need to be addressed before it functions well in practice:
- Capacity — a shortage of qualified digital-forensics experts and existing backlogs at government forensic laboratories.
- Quality control — accreditation, competency standards, and consistency across examiners.
- Independence — ensuring experts remain neutral and free of conflicts of interest, especially where the state is a party.
- Chain of custody — preserving original devices intact while enabling timely examination.
- Privacy and confidentiality — handling sensitive personal data (messages, photos, location history) responsibly.
- Cybersecurity — protecting evidence from tampering or leakage during transit and storage.
- Geographic accessibility — ensuring the scheme reaches litigants outside major cities.
- Standardisation — aligning methodologies across different laboratories and panels.
- Training — equipping lawyers and judges to understand what forensic examination can and cannot establish.
What This Means for Forensic Science Students
This development is a live illustration of why the BSA, 2023 — and Section 63 specifically — belongs in every forensic science student's working knowledge, not just their exam syllabus. The core competencies this case turns on are exactly the ones that matter for UGC NET, FACT, CFSL, and State FSL preparation: the digital-evidence lifecycle, mobile and computer forensics fundamentals, hashing and integrity verification, metadata analysis, chain-of-custody documentation, forensic report writing, and the courtroom mechanics of expert testimony. Understanding why Part B of the Section 63 certificate exists — and what an expert is actually being asked to certify — is more useful preparation than memorising the section number alone.
What This Means for Lawyers and Investigators
The case is also a reminder of good practice on the ground: consult a forensic expert early when digital evidence is central to a matter, preserve original devices rather than working only from screenshots or exports, document how evidence was acquired at every step, and be precise about the difference between what a forensic examination has established and what a party is merely asserting. A screenshot is a starting point for an investigation, not a substitute for one.
The Bigger Question: Can Digital Justice Exist Without Forensic Access?
Strip away the procedural details and the PIL is asking something larger: as courts lean more heavily on electronic evidence, does the legal system risk becoming two-tiered — one track for litigants who can privately afford technical expertise to authenticate their evidence, and another for litigants who cannot, even when their underlying evidence is just as strong?
That is an analytical question, not a political one, and it is exactly the kind of question access-to-justice frameworks like NALSA exist to address. Whether a publicly supported forensic-assistance mechanism can close that gap — and how it would be resourced, staffed, and kept independent — is now, at least formally, before the Delhi High Court for the first time in this specific form.
Timeline
1 Jul 2024
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 comes into force, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 63 replaces the old Section 65B framework for electronic evidence.
May 2026
NALSA responds to an RTI application confirming there is no existing provision for expert assistance to legal-aid beneficiaries for Section 63 certification. (PTI/The New Indian Express)
19 Aug 2026
Delhi HC Division Bench (CJ Upadhyaya and Justice Karia) issues notice on the PIL, seeks NALSA and Centre's response, and asks NALSA to consider a possible scheme.
23 Aug 2026
Wider news coverage of the development, including PTI's report.
Oct 2026
Matter listed for further hearing (exact date not specified in reports reviewed).
Key Takeaways
- Delhi HC has issued notice on a PIL examining access to forensic assistance for electronic evidence, not decided the issue.
- The dispute centres on Part B of the Section 63 BSA certificate, which requires expert examination of electronic records and devices.
- The PIL specifically targets litigants entitled to free legal aid who cannot afford private forensic experts.
- NALSA has confirmed, via RTI response, that no institutional mechanism for such assistance currently exists.
- The Court has directed NALSA to consider and propose a possible scheme; the Centre has also been asked to respond.
- No nationwide free-forensic-assistance scheme has been ordered or announced — the matter is listed for further hearing in October 2026.
- The case highlights the growing courtroom weight of digital forensics across Indian civil and criminal litigation.
- It raises a genuine access-to-justice question: whether affordability of forensic expertise could create unequal ability to use the same category of evidence.
Sources
Note: LiveLaw's full report is behind a subscription paywall beyond its opening paragraphs; details attributed to LiveLaw above are drawn from its publicly visible report text. Courtbook.in and other secondary aggregator reports were cross-checked but not relied upon as primary sources for any fact not independently corroborated by LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, or PTI. No case number was independently verifiable from the sources reviewed and is therefore not stated in this article.
