Handwriting cases turn on a single, deceptively simple question: is this the writing of the person it purports to be from? Answering it well requires a witness who has genuinely learned that person's hand — through correspondence, business dealings, or watching them write. Section 41 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) admits their opinion, and in sub-section (2) it does the same for the modern equivalent — opinions on a person's electronic signature, given by the Certifying Authority that issued the certificate.
41. Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant. (1) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.—A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
Illustration. The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in Itanagar. B is a merchant in Bengaluru, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C, is B's clerk whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.
(2) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the electronic signature of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the Electronic Signature Certificate is a relevant fact.
Two changes from the 1872 Act, both in service of consolidation
Section 41 corresponds to Sections 47 and 47A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Section 47 IEA dealt with opinion on handwriting; Section 47A IEA — inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000 — dealt with opinion on electronic signatures given by the Certifying Authority. The BSA has made two related changes.
| Feature | Sections 47 and 47A, IEA | Section 41, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Heading of the main provision | "Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant" | "Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant" |
| Placement of electronic-signature rule | Separate section (Section 47A) | Sub-section (2) of Section 41 |
| Substantive rules | Handwriting acquaintance test; Certifying Authority opinion on electronic signature | Identical, now within one section |
The consolidation matters practically. A litigant working with the BSA no longer needs to look up two provisions to find both regimes; the handwriting rule and its digital counterpart sit side by side, making the parallel obvious.
The acquaintance test in sub-section (1)
Sub-section (1) admits the opinion of "any person acquainted with the handwriting" of the supposed writer. What makes a person "acquainted" is set out in the Explanation and covers three well-defined routes:
None of these three routes requires the witness to have watched the person write — only route (1) does, and it is not the only route. The illustration makes this explicit: B, C, and D can all give admissible opinion on A's handwriting despite never having seen A write, because each has one of the other qualifying routes of acquaintance.
Sub-section (2): the Certifying Authority's role
Sub-section (2) is the digital analogue. Where the court has to form an opinion on a person's electronic signature, the opinion of the Certifying Authority that issued the Electronic Signature Certificate is a relevant fact. Certifying Authorities are the institutional guarantors of India's public-key infrastructure under the Information Technology Act, 2000; they issue the certificates that bind a public key to a subscriber's identity. Their opinion on the electronic signature of that subscriber is treated in Section 41(2) as material the court may receive on the question of authenticity.
This is a narrow provision that fills a real gap. A lay witness cannot be "acquainted" with an electronic signature in the sub-section (1) sense — an electronic signature is a cryptographic value, not a hand-formed mark that one recognises through familiarity. The Certifying Authority, by contrast, holds the technical means to speak to whether a particular signature was made using the subscriber's certificate. Section 41(2) puts that opinion where the court needs it.
What did not change
The substantive rules — the acquaintance test in Section 47 IEA and the Certifying Authority rule in Section 47A IEA — have been carried over word-for-word. The BPRD table records only the heading addition ("and signature") for sub-section (1) and the structural change of folding 47A in as sub-section (2). Judicial decisions on Section 47 IEA — for example, on when the second route of acquaintance is satisfied by a genuine correspondence, or on the weight of unaided handwriting opinion against comparison and expert evidence — continue to guide interpretation of Section 41(1) BSA.
Key Takeaways
- Two sections merged into one: Section 47 IEA and Section 47A IEA are now Section 41(1) and (2) BSA respectively.
- Heading updated: "handwriting" becomes "handwriting and signature" — the section's scope is now explicit.
- Three acquaintance routes: seeing the person write, receiving replies to your letters, or habitual business submission of their documents.
- Illustration confirms breadth: witnesses who never saw the person write can still give admissible opinion.
- Electronic signatures: the Certifying Authority's opinion is relevant on authenticity, filling the gap where acquaintance is not conceptually available.
Conclusion
Section 41 combines two well-tried rules into a single, coherent provision. It preserves the acquaintance test that generations of Indian courts have applied to handwriting disputes, while adding the digital counterpart in a form that reflects the technical reality of electronic signatures. The BSA's decision to fold Section 47A of the 1872 Act into Section 41 as sub-section (2) — and to update the heading to name signatures explicitly — is a modest but useful tidying, making the section easier to find, easier to read, and easier to apply.