Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.
Strengthening India’s digital evidence analysis capacity with new examiners of electronic evidence
On July 9, 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) notified 6 (six) additional institutions as Examiners of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) (“Notifications”), expanding India’s formally recognised capacity to examine computer, mobile and drone related electronic evidence. As electronic records move to the centre of commercial disputes, cybercrime investigations, fraud cases and criminal prosecutions, the speed and credibility with which such evidence can be examined is becoming a business risk question, not merely a procedural one.
Background
Section 79A of the IT Act permits the Central Government to notify a department, body or agency of the Central or State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence for providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence. The statutory definition of electronic form is broad and covers information stored or transmitted in electronic form, including computer evidence, digital audio, digital video, cell phones, and digital fax machines.
The provision is particularly relevant because Section 39(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) recognises that the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence is a relevant fact when a court is required to form an opinion concerning information stored or transmitted in a computer resource or other electronic or digital form. The BSA therefore creates a direct statutory link between the framework under Section 79A of the IT Act and expert opinion concerning electronic evidence.
Key legal developments and significance
Six additional institutions notified
The MeitY has added 6 (six) laboratories to an existing network of notified institutions/laboratories across India. The newly notified laboratories are:
| Notified institution | Scope of evidence | Location |
| Central Forensic Science Laboratory | Computer (media) forensics, mobile devices forensics | Kolkata, West Bengal, India |
| Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories | Computer (media) forensics, mobile devices forensics | Mumbai, Maharashtra, India |
| Cyber Forensic Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory | Computer (media) forensics, excluding floppy disk, mobile devices forensics | Jaipur, Rajasthan, India |
| Special Instruments Wing, Border Security Force, Central Drone Forensic Laboratory | Drone forensics | New Delhi, India |
| National Forensics Science University | Computer (media) forensics, mobile devices forensics | Goa, India |
| Navy Cyber Group, Cyber Forensic Laboratory | Computer (media) forensics, excluding floppy disk, mobile devices forensics | New Delhi, India |
Increased institutional capacity for electronic evidence
The Notifications increase the number of government laboratories that can formally operate within the framework of Section 79A of the IT Act. This is important because digital evidence is increasingly dispersed across devices and platforms. These include mobile phones, drones, computers, cloud-connected systems, Closed-Circuit Television (“CCTV”) systems, global positioning system records and other connected devices.
For businesses, recognised laboratories closer to the location of an investigation may reduce the practical difficulties of transporting devices and evidence across jurisdictions and strengthen regional capacity.
No creation of new admissibility requirement
Readers should not, however, understand the Notifications as creating a rule that electronic evidence is admissible only when an examiner under Section 79A of the IT Act has examined it. The Kerala High Court recently reinforced this distinction in Marakkar vs. State of Kerala[1]. The High Court considered whether the absence of a notification of an institution under Section 79A of the IT Act could, by itself, invalidate a forensic report concerning electronic evidence, and held that it does not automatically render electronic or digital evidence inadmissible where a competent scientific expert has examined the evidence. This decision follows the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Pune Bar Association vs. Union of India[2]. In that case, the apex court held that, for the purpose of Section 79A of the IT Act, the opinion of any person with special skill and expertise in computer science and cyber forensics, may be considered as an expert of electronic record.
This is an important qualification to the significance of the new Notifications. Section 79A of the IT Act provides a recognised statutory route for expert opinion, but it does not make a notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence the only person who can examine or give evidence concerning electronic material.
Analysis and business implications
- Increased scope of digital evidence: MeitY’s inclusion of the Central Drone Forensic Lab shows that digital evidence is no longer limited to computers and mobile phones. The Government of India’s approach to electronic evidence is moving beyond conventional computer and mobile device examination. It now includes specialised forensic treatment of emerging technologies.
- Evidence preservation is critical: Companies should treat the preservation of electronic evidence as an immediate step. This applies once regulatory investigation, litigation, fraud or an internal investigation is reasonably anticipated. Relevant electronic communication, access logs, CCTV footage, device images and other electronic records should be preserved. This should occur before routine deletion or system-overwriting processes affect them.
- Accelerated timelines for forensic analysis: With the Notifications adding 6 (six) new Examiners of Electronic Evidence, the Notifications may ease the bottlenecks seen in previous trials, including the shortage of government-notified experts. Businesses may see shorter queues and faster turnaround for forensic analysis, allowing courts to admit digital exhibits sooner in a trial.
Conclusion
MeitY’s notification of 6 (six) additional Examiners of Electronic Evidence represents a meaningful strengthening of India’s digital forensics infrastructure. Its importance lies less in the formal expansion of the list of notified laboratories. It lies more in the broader shift towards increased scope in digital evidence and regional access of notified examiners.
Businesses should therefore review their incident-response and internal investigation protocols. This is to ensure that electronic evidence is preserved from the outset. The chain of custody must also be demonstrable. In significant matters, early engagement with notified experts will help temper evidentiary disputes at a later stage.
This Prism has been prepared by:
|
Probir Roy Chowdhury |
Nikhil George |
Aryan R Nair |
Ayush A Menon |
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.
[1] 2026:KER:35892; Crl. Appeal No. 598/2023 (decided on May 25, 2026)
[2] WP (Civil) No. 599/2026 (decided on May 22, 2026)
