Role of Handwriting Expert in Court India: Section 39 BSA 2023

For more than 150 years, expert evidence in Indian courts, including the opinion of a handwriting or document expert, rested on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That era has ended. On 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) came into force and repealed the old Act, renumbering and modernising the rules that govern how courts treat expert opinions on disputed signatures, handwriting and documents.

If you are an advocate, a litigant, or anyone relying on a forensic report in a civil or criminal matter, the change is more than cosmetic. The core principles are largely preserved, but the section numbers have changed and a report or submission that still cites the repealed provisions can look dated and, at worst, invite avoidable objections. This guide explains what actually changed, in plain terms.

The headline: a new Act, the same core principles

The BSA (Act No. 47 of 2023) replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with effect from 1 July 2024. It keeps the architecture of evidence law intact in terms of relevancy, admissions, documentary evidence, burden of proof, while updating language and, importantly for forensic work, accommodating other facets of evidence

For handwriting and document experts, three provisions matter most.

Section 39: the Opinion of Experts (formerly Section 45)

The provision that allows a court to rely on expert opinion now sits at Section 39 of the BSA. Under the old law (Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act), a court could take expert opinion on foreign law, science, art, and the identity of handwriting and finger impressions. Section 39 preserves this and broadens it: experts may now give opinion on science, art, or “any other field”, widening the categories of specialised knowledge a court can draw on.

Section 39 continues the express recognition of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence as an expert for matters involving information stored or transmitted in digital form, a direct response to the rise of digital records and cyber-forensics. This was initially restricted to government agencies notified by the Central Government, but then enlarged to private experts by the Hon. Supreme Court in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India . But more than that, it would also have been counterproductive as many of the electronic document examination facets like altered PDF files, fall under questioned document examination rather than cyber-forensics or electronic evidence per se. This is not an impediment any longer.

A separate provision, Section 66, deals specifically with electronic signatures, which are proved through certificates and technical verification rather than visual comparison.

It is interesting to see that handwriting and fingerprints have not been clubbed into science or arts but have been recognized as unique disciplines in themselves. The broadening of the scope also allows the handwriting expert to truly work as a questioned document examiner.

For a forensic document examiner, the practical effect is continuity on a clearer footing: the examiner’s opinion on whether a signature is genuine or forged, or whether two writings share authorship, remains a relevant fact the court may consider, now under Section 39.

Section 41: Opinion on Handwriting and Signatures (formerly Sections 47 and 47A)

Indian evidence law distinguishes the opinion of a trained expert from the opinion of an ordinary person who is simply familiar with someone’s handwriting. The latter, for example, a clerk who routinely handled a person’s correspondence, was covered by Sections 47 and 47A of the old Act. The BSA consolidates these into a single provision, Section 41, titled “Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant,” and also addresses electronic signatures.

Why does this matter? Because it underlines a point that is easy to miss: a layperson’s familiarity-based opinion and a forensic examiner’s scientific comparison are different categories of evidence. Courts weigh them differently, and a well-reasoned expert report carries evidential value precisely because it rests on documented, repeatable analysis rather than mere acquaintance.

Section 72: Comparison of Signatures and Writing (formerly Section 73)

Perhaps the most practically important provision for disputed-signature cases is the court’s own power to compare writings. Under the old Section 73, now Section 72 of the BSA, a court may compare a disputed signature or writing with one that has been admitted or proved to be genuine even though it has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

This section somewhat sets apart handwriting from the other fields of forensics, which do not give the courts such generic and direct role to examine the evidence themselves.
The court also have the power to obtain specimen for undertaking such comparison.

The forensic expert’s role complements the court’s power: where a matter benefits from specialised analysis beyond a visual look, the examiner provides a structured comparison and a reasoned opinion.

What this means for the role of a handwriting expert in court

Put together, these provisions confirm that the role of a handwriting expert in court in India is well established under the new law:

• A handwriting expert’s he opinion is admissible under Section 39 as the opinion of an expert as an independent expert opinion for both civil and criminal cases.
• It complements, rather than replaces, the court’s own power of comparison under Section 72.
• It is distinct from, and generally weightier than, a non-expert’s familiarity-based opinion under Section 41.

A forensic handwriting expert for court cases typically examines the questioned and genuine writings, applies recognised comparison methodology, prepares a written opinion explaining the basis for the findings, and where the matter goes to trial, appears to present and defend those findings under cross-examination.

Why citing the current law matters

Because the BSA only recently replaced a 150-year-old Act, a great deal of older material and many practitioners’ templates still reference the repealed Section 45, 47 or 73. Using the correct, current provisions (Sections 39, 41 and 72) is not pedantry: it signals that the report and the expert are current, reduces the risk of avoidable objections, and helps the court engage with the substance rather than the form.

Key takeaways

• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 1 July 2024.
• Expert opinion (including handwriting and document experts) is now under Section 39.
• The BSA 2023 now covers “any other field”, explicitly allowing the examination of other facets of the documents.
• Opinion on handwriting and signatures is under Section 41;
• the court’s power to compare signatures with genuine standards is under Section 72.