How to Prepare a Section 63 Certificate for Electronic Records Produced With an AI Tool
A model in the chain does not change the test for admitting an electronic record, but it changes what the certificate has to say. Preparing a section 63 certificate for output that an artificial intelligence tool helped produce means answering the same four statutory conditions on facts the provision was not drafted with in mind.
Step 1: Confirm the Material Is a Computer Output at All
Sub-section (1) of section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 treats information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer or communication device as a document, admissible without further proof or production of the original where direct oral evidence of its contents would be admissible. Sub-section (5) then settles what would otherwise be argued: output is produced by a device whether directly or, with or without human intervention, through appropriate equipment. Material that passed through a model is therefore still computer output, and the difficulty lies in the conditions rather than in the character of the record.
Step 2: Work Out the Regular Activity, and Be Honest About It
Clause (a) of sub-section (2) requires the output to have been produced during a period when the device was regularly used to create, store or process information for activities regularly carried on by a person having lawful control over its use. Clause (b) requires that information of that kind was regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course of those activities.
This is where an AI-produced record is most exposed, and the exposure is factual rather than legal. A tool run once for the proceeding is not a device regularly used for a regular activity; a system embedded in an ongoing business process is. If it is the former, the material should be proved another way.
Step 3: Deal With Proper Operation and Malfunction
Clause (c) requires that throughout the material part of the period the device was operating properly, or that any malfunction or non-operation did not affect the record or the accuracy of its contents. For a generative system the practical equivalents are a model version change, an altered configuration and a change in the retrieval corpus. None is a fault in the ordinary sense, but proper operation should not be certified without someone having checked the version and configuration in force when the output was generated.
Step 4: Trace the Derivation, Including Where It Cannot Be Traced
Clause (d) requires the record to reproduce, or be derived from, information fed into the device in the ordinary course of those activities. For a system that retrieves and assembles material a person already wrote, the derivation can be shown document by document. For a system that generates new text by predictive modelling, the output is not derived from any identifiable input in the way the clause contemplates, and the certificate should describe what the tool did rather than assert a derivation that cannot be demonstrated.
Step 5: Treat the Whole Chain as One Device
Sub-section (3) provides that where the function was performed over the relevant period by one or more computers or communication devices, whether standalone or on a system or a network or a computer resource or through an intermediary, all of them are treated as a single device. So a record produced by a model hosted by a third party does not fail merely because the processing happened across several machines. The counterpart is that the particulars required by clause (b) of sub-section (4) must cover the whole chain, including the hosted component.
Step 6: Describe the Manner of Production With Specificity
Clause (a) of sub-section (4) requires the certificate to identify the record and describe the manner in which it was produced. For AI-assisted output that means the input or query, the tool and its version, and what a human did to the output afterwards. The last of those is usually left out and matters most: an edited output is a different record from the raw output, and certifying one while describing the other is a mismatch visible on the face of the papers.
Step 7: Put the Hash Value in Part A, Computed on the Record as Filed
The certificate must be in the form specified in the Schedule, and Part A of that form requires the hash value of the record to be disclosed. The Supreme Court, disposing of a writ petition filed by the Pune Bar Association on May 22, 2026 without issuing notice, upheld sub-section (4) and the Schedule against a challenge of manifest arbitrariness. It treated the hash value as the electronic equivalent of a fingerprint and held the requirement rationally connected to the object of securing the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence.
The practical point is narrow and frequently missed: the hash has to be computed on the record actually filed, not on a working copy that is then exported or converted.
Step 8: Have Part B Signed by Someone Whose Expertise Can Be Proved
Part B is the expert portion. Sub-section (2) of section 39 makes the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 a relevant fact where the Court has to form an opinion on information transmitted or stored in electronic form, and an Explanation provides that such an Examiner shall be an expert. Section 79A is the provision under which the Central Government notifies a department, body or agency as an Examiner.
In the same matter the Court held that a Madras High Court view confining Part B to an Examiner notified under section 79A is not binding, observing that sub-section (1) of section 39 makes relevant the opinion of a person specially skilled, that sub-section (2) carries no clause excluding it, and that on unimpeachable material a person with special skill in computer science and cyber forensics may be treated as an expert. The question was left open, so the safer course remains a notified Examiner where one can be engaged.
Step 9: File the Certificate Every Time, and Keep What Supports It
Sub-section (4) requires the certificate to accompany the record each time it is submitted for admission, so one filed with the first application does not carry forward. It must purport to be signed by a person in charge of the device or of the management of the relevant activities, and its contents may be stated to the best of that person's knowledge and belief. That formula permits accuracy about the limits of what the signatory knows, not vagueness about the record.
Retain the logs for the period, the version and configuration record, the input or query, the raw output before editing, the hashing record and the expert's working papers. Assembling that file after a challenge is not the same exercise.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Certifying a one-off run as a regular activity: Clause (a) turns on regular use for activities regularly carried on, which a tool used once for the case is not.
Stopping the particulars at the local machine: Sub-section (3) makes the chain a single device, so the particulars must cover the hosted components.
Hashing the working copy: The hash in Part A has to be computed on the record as filed, after any conversion or export.
Leaving the expert question to the hearing: Where no notified Examiner signs Part B, the material establishing special skill has to be ready in advance.
Key Statutory Provisions
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Admissibility of electronic records. Sub-section (1) deems information in an electronic record produced by a computer or communication device to be a document, admissible without further proof or production of the original. Sub-section (2) sets four conditions in clauses (a) to (d): regular use of the device for regular activities, regular feeding of information of that kind in the ordinary course, proper operation or an immaterial malfunction, and reproduction from or derivation of the information so fed. Sub-section (3) treats several devices performing the function as one. Sub-section (4) requires a certificate in the form specified in the Schedule, accompanying the record each time it is submitted for admission, signed by a person in charge of the device or of the relevant activities.
Section 39 of the same Adhiniyam: Opinions of experts. Sub-section (1) makes relevant the opinion of a person specially skilled in the field on which the Court has to form an opinion. Sub-section (2) makes relevant the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence on information transmitted or stored in electronic form, with an Explanation that such an Examiner shall be an expert. Neither sub-section carries a non obstante clause.
Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000: The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify a department, body or agency of the Central or a State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence, to provide expert opinion on electronic form evidence before any court or other authority.
Sources and References
Report of the Supreme Court matter, on the expert signing the second part
Independent report of the same matter, on the hash value and the Schedule
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, sections 39 and 63 and the Schedule; and the Information Technology Act, 2000, section 79A
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.
Comments