--- title: "Section 63 BSA: Electronic Evidence Certificate Explained" description: "WhatsApp chats, screenshots, CDRs and CCTV in Indian courts now fall under Section 63 BSA (new 65B): the dual-certificate rule, hash and preservation." url: "https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/" image: "https://advaslam.com/og/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide.png" --- [Cyber crime & IT Act matters](https://advaslam.com/practice/cyber-crime/) # Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts After 1 July 2024: Section 63 BSA and the Certificate That Decides Cases By [**Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam**](https://advaslam.com/profile/) · Advocate, Ernakulam (Bar Council of Kerala) Published 1 September 2026 After 1 July 2024, every screenshot, WhatsApp chat, call detail record, CCTV clip, server log and email printout tendered in an Indian court is governed not by Section 65B of the old Evidence Act but by [Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496549) — and the difference that decides cases is the certificate in Section 63(4), which the Supreme Court has held is mandatory for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. An electronic record filed without the correct certificate, with the wrong signatory, or without a hash is liable to be excluded at trial no matter how compelling it looks on paper. ## What is an electronic record under the BSA, and why does Section 63 exist? The [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496549) (BSA) defines an electronic record in the same technology-neutral way the Evidence Act did — information generated, sent, received or stored in electronic form, including data, images, sound and video stored on a computer resource. A computer resource is itself defined broadly under Section 2(1)(k) of the [IT Act, 2000](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496511) to include computers, computer systems, computer networks, data and software. Section 63 BSA exists because electronic records are inherently replicable. Unlike a signed paper contract, where the original can be examined for ink and handwriting, a screenshot can be cropped, a chat can be edited in a forwarded copy, and a CCTV file can be re-encoded. Section 63 therefore does two things: it declares that information contained in an electronic record printed on paper or stored on optical or magnetic media is deemed to be a document and is admissible without proof of the original, **but only if** the four conditions in Section 63(2) and the certificate in Section 63(4) are satisfied. Those conditions are the bridge between the digital world and the courtroom. ## What are the four conditions for admissibility under Section 63(2)? Before reaching the certificate, Section 63(2) requires the court to be satisfied on four matters about the computer that produced the record: 1. The computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of activities regularly carried on by the person having lawful control over its use. 2. During that period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. 3. Throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly — or, if not, the malfunction did not affect the production of the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents. 4. The information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. In practice, the certificate is how these four conditions are spoken to on oath. A bare printout that asserts these conditions in argument but does not carry a certificate fails at the threshold. ## What must the Section 63(4) certificate contain, and who signs it? Section 63(4) BSA, read with the Schedule to the Adhiniyam, prescribes a certificate that must: - Identify the electronic record and describe the manner in which it was produced. - Give particulars of the device and the process that generated the record sufficient to show the four conditions above. - Confirm that the device was operating properly during the relevant period. - Enclose a **hash value** of the electronic record — the cryptographic fingerprint that ties the copy tendered to the specific data that existed on the device. - Be signed by **two persons**: the person in charge of the computer resource or the management of the relevant activities (Part A of the Schedule form), and an **expert** — ordinarily an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under [Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496511) (Part B of the Schedule form). The BSA’s dual-signature design is the main change from the Evidence Act era. Under Section 65B(4), a single certificate by the person in charge sufficed on the text, though courts often looked for expert support on authenticity. Under Section 63(4), the Schedule form makes the expert’s hash report an integral part of the certificate. On 22 May 2026 the Supreme Court upheld Section 63(4) against a constitutional challenge, calling the hash value an “electronic fingerprint” and holding that Part B is not confined to a Section 79A Examiner — a person with special skill in computer science or cyber forensics may sign it where the court is satisfied on unimpeachable material, though the Court kept that question of law open (*Pune Bar Association v. Union of India*, WP(C) No. 599 of 2026, decided 22 May 2026; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297). Consistent with [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172105947/), the practical advice for 2025–2026 filings is: - File the complete certificate — person in charge plus expert with hash — with the document when it is tendered; tendering a person-in-charge-only certificate and expecting to supply the expert component later is not a strategy, because Khotkar curability is not an entitlement, and - The certificate can be filed late — at any stage before evidence is closed — and the court can summon the certifier, as Khotkar recognised, so a party that discovers the omission is not automatically shut out, but relying on indulgence is not a strategy. ## What did Anvar and Khotkar actually hold, and do they still govern the BSA? Yes — the reasoning of both decisions governs Section 63 BSA because the language is carried forward: - **[Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/)** held that Section 65B is a complete code for electronic evidence, that compliance with its conditions and certificate is mandatory, and that secondary electronic evidence without a certificate is inadmissible and cannot be cured by oral evidence. - **[Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172105947/)** clarified that the certificate must ordinarily accompany the electronic record when it is tendered, that it can in appropriate cases be filed later before the trial concludes, and that the court has the power to summon the person who gave the certificate. The BSA’s Section 63 is avowedly Section 65B in new numbering with the certificate requirement tightened, not diluted. Every High Court that has addressed the point since July 2024 has applied Anvar and Khotkar to Section 63. Citing Section 65B in a pleading filed today is not wrong in substance — judges know the lineage — but citing Section 63 BSA is the correct current form and signals that the pleader is working with the law as it stands after 1 July 2024. ## How should you preserve electronic evidence so it survives Section 63? The rules that matter are not courtroom rules first — they are preservation rules in the first days after an incident, because a badly preserved record cannot be redeemed by a good certificate later. For complainants, accused persons, businesses and advocates in Kerala: 1. **Keep the original device.** The phone, laptop or DVR that holds the original data is the best evidence (primary evidence under Section 57 BSA). A printout or export is secondary evidence that needs Section 63. If the device is lost or overwritten, the strongest mode of proof is gone. 2. **Do not edit, crop or annotate the original before seizure or imaging.** Give the investigating officer the clean originals; keep annotated copies separately for your own reference. An edited screenshot where the clock or URL is cropped out is weaker than the untouched original. 3. **Preserve in the app, not only as forwarded images.** A WhatsApp chat forwarded to another number is a copy of a copy. Keep the chat on the original handset, back up with the app’s own export, and let the forensic image be taken from the primary source. 4. **Get the certificate at the time of tender.** If you are the party relying on the record, ensure the certificate in the Schedule form — with device particulars, hash and both signatures — accompanies the document when it is filed. If you receive a certificate from a service provider (for example, a 65B/63 certificate from a bank for a CDR or from a platform for server logs), check that it identifies the specific record, not the system in general. 5. **For magistrate courts, prepare for the hash question.** Under the BSA, the hash report is not an optional technical annexure — it is part of the proof that the copy tendered is of the specific data that existed on the device. Budget time for an examiner under Section 79A of the IT Act where the volume or technical complexity warrants it. ## How does Section 63 apply in the cyber matters this practice handles? Three contexts come up repeatedly: - **Bank-freeze cases.** The account statement, the NCRP acknowledgment, the 1930 call log and the requisition letter from the cyber cell are all electronic records. They are typically proved as secondary copies and should carry Section 63 certificates from the bank or the agency, which is why the first-week step in [the bank-freeze guide](https://advaslam.com/writing/bank-account-frozen-cyber-cell-kerala/) is to get the freeze details in writing with reference numbers — that writing is what makes the later certificate possible. - **Sextortion and image-based abuse.** The chat, the images and the call records are electronic records that must survive Section 63 to prove the threat and the demand. Preserving the original device and its chat, as described in the [sextortion guide](https://advaslam.com/writing/sextortion-blackmail-kerala-legal-remedies/), is the preservation step that makes the certificate achievable. - **UPI fraud.** The UPI transaction logs, the CFCFRMS trail and the bank’s lien-marking messages are electronic records. An application for release of a frozen amount under Sections 497 to 505 BNSS that annexes a bank statement without a certificate risks an avoidable evidentiary gap — the guidance in [the UPI fraud recovery guide](https://advaslam.com/writing/upi-fraud-complaint-recovery/) to keep transaction reference numbers and to write to the bank on day one is, in evidentiary terms, the groundwork for the Section 63 certificate the court will later look for. ## Primary sources - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — India Code](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496549) (Section 57 on primary evidence, Section 63 on admissibility of electronic records, Schedule Form of certificate) - [Information Technology Act, 2000 — India Code](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496511) (Section 2(1)(k) computer resource, Section 79A Examiner of Electronic Evidence) - [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/) - [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172105947/) - [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — India Code](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496550) (Section 94 summons to produce electronic records) FAQ ## Common questions **What replaced Section 65B of the Evidence Act?** Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which came into force on 1 July 2024 replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 63 carries forward the substance of Section 65B — the special procedure for proving electronic records — with a tightened certificate requirement in Section 63(4) and a prescribed form in the Schedule that now contemplates a hash value and dual signatures. **Is a Section 63 certificate mandatory for every electronic record?** Yes, where the electronic record is proved by secondary evidence — a printout, a forwarded copy, a screenshot, a CDR, a CCTV clip on a pen drive. The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) held that the certificate is a mandatory condition for admissibility and that a trial court cannot dispense with it. If the original device or original electronic record itself is produced and proved in the ordinary way, the Section 63 route is not needed, but in practice most records are copies that require the certificate. **Who must sign the Section 63 certificate under the BSA?** Section 63(4) of the BSA, read with the Schedule, contemplates a certificate signed by both the person in charge of the computer resource or communication device (or the person managing the relevant activity) and an expert — ordinarily an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000, though in May 2026 the Supreme Court observed that a person shown to have special skill in computer science and cyber forensics may also sign, keeping that question open — enclosing a hash report of the record. As advice: file the complete certificate with both signatures and a hash when the record is tendered. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar permits late filing before evidence closes, but that curability is not an entitlement to tender an incomplete certificate — an incomplete filing risks exclusion. **Can a Section 63 certificate be filed late?** Yes, within limits. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar the Supreme Court held that the certificate can be filed at any stage before the evidence is concluded, and the court can summon the certifier where necessary, so a prosecution or party that discovers the defect is not automatically shut out. But reliance on late filing is risky — the certificate should accompany the document when it is tendered, and a party that tenders electronic evidence without any certificate risks having the core of its case excluded. **Does forwarding a WhatsApp chat weaken its evidentiary value?** Yes. A forwarded copy or a screenshot of a forwarded message is a copy of a copy — at two removes from the original data on the device and the server. It is harder to certify, easier to challenge for tampering, and weaker corroboration than the original chat on the original device with its metadata and hash preserved. Preserve the original device, keep the chat in the app, and let the certificate be prepared from the primary source. **A note on this article.** It is general legal information, not legal advice. The law may have changed since the date shown; before acting on anything here, take advice on your specific situation from an advocate of your choice. Keep reading Cyber crime & IT Act matters ### Cyber Fraud Defence in Kerala: Freeze to Recovery Hub Answer cyber fraud in Kerala step by step: freeze unfreezing, UPI and task-scam recovery, P2P taint, notices, escalation, evidence, ED and CIBIL sequels. 5 Oct 2026 [Cyber Fraud Defence in Kerala: Freeze to Recovery Hub](https://advaslam.com/writing/cyber-fraud-defence-kerala/) Cyber crime & IT Act matters ### Telegram Task Scam and Online Job Fraud: How It Works and How to Recover Money in Kerala Lost money to a Telegram task or job scam? Why Section 66D IT Act and Section 318(4) BNS apply, why chasing deeper levels hurts, and 1930 and bank steps. 6 Sept 2026 [Telegram Task Scam and Online Job Fraud: How It Works and How to Recover Money in Kerala](https://advaslam.com/writing/telegram-job-task-scam-recovery/) Contact [WhatsApp](https://wa.me/919497240215?text=Hello%2C%20I%20found%20advaslam.com%20and%20would%20like%20to%20discuss%20a%20matter.) [contact@advaslam.com](mailto:contact@advaslam.com) [+91 94972 40215](tel:+919497240215) 3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction, Ernakulam, Kerala 682031 · Monday – Saturday, 10:00 – 18:30 (by appointment) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website","url":"https://advaslam.com","name":"Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam","alternateName":"advaslam.com","publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"inLanguage":"en-IN"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person","name":"K J Muhammed Aslam","alternateName":["Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam","Advocate K J Muhammed Aslam","Muhammed Aslam K J","Adv. Aslam"],"honorificPrefix":"Adv.","jobTitle":"Advocate","description":"Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala, practising from High Court Junction, Ernakulam: cyber and technology law, data protection (DPDP), business, banking and IPR, and litigation before the High Court of Kerala and the courts at Ernakulam.","url":"https://advaslam.com/profile/","image":"https://advaslam.com/og.png","telephone":"+919497240215","email":"contact@advaslam.com","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction","addressLocality":"Ernakulam","addressRegion":"Kerala","postalCode":"682031","addressCountry":"IN"},"alumniOf":{"@type":"CollegeOrUniversity","name":"Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies"},"memberOf":[{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bar Council of Kerala","url":"https://barcouncilkerala.org/lawyer-registry-list"},{"@type":"Organization","name":"Kerala High Court Advocates' Association","url":"https://khcaa.com/"}],"identifier":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"Bar Council of Kerala Enrolment No.","value":"K/001823/2026"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"KHCAA Membership No.","value":"OAJ 358"}],"knowsAbout":["Information Technology Act 2000","Cyber crime law","Technology law and technology contracts","Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023","DPDP compliance","Data protection and privacy law","Business and commercial law","Contract drafting and negotiation","Banking and finance law","Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour","SARFAESI Act","Intellectual property law","Copyright and trademark law","Patent infringement","GST and income-tax law","Blockchain and cryptocurrency technology","Web3 wallets and NFTs","Drone regulation and DigitalSky framework","Writ petitions under Article 226","Criminal law","Civil and consumer litigation","Family and succession law","Service and labour law","Legal drafting","Mediation and dispute resolution"],"knowsLanguage":["en","ml"],"workLocation":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice"},"hasCredential":[{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"Enrolment as an advocate","identifier":"K/001823/2026","recognizedBy":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bar Council of Kerala"},"description":"Enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala (K/001823/2026), 2026"},{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"degree","educationalLevel":"Bachelor","recognizedBy":{"@type":"CollegeOrUniversity","name":"Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies"},"description":"BBA LLB (Hons.), Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies (2025)"},{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"Remote Pilot Certificate","recognizedBy":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Directorate General of Civil Aviation, India"},"description":"DGCA Remote Pilot Certificate, issued 2022"}],"subjectOf":[{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Govind Babu v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 5640 of 2026, 2026:KER:69496)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151180872/","datePublished":"2026-09-10","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Viji Sagar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 1603 of 2026, 2026:KER:20803)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193042273/","datePublished":"2026-03-09","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Anjana v. Manoharan A.P. (C.R.P. No. 442 of 2025, 2026:KER:10054)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68585852/","datePublished":"2026-02-05","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}}],"sameAs":["https://www.linkedin.com/in/azlubro","https://portal.khcaa.com/advocate?id=10480","https://lexosys.com"]},{"@type":"LegalService","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice","name":"Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam — Advocate, Ernakulam","url":"https://advaslam.com","image":"https://advaslam.com/og.png","telephone":"+919497240215","email":"contact@advaslam.com","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction","addressLocality":"Ernakulam","addressRegion":"Kerala","postalCode":"682031","addressCountry":"IN"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":9.9889,"longitude":76.2748},"hasMap":"https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Lalan+Towers+High+Court+Junction+Ernakulam","areaServed":[{"@type":"City","name":"Ernakulam"},{"@type":"City","name":"Kochi"},{"@type":"State","name":"Kerala"},{"@type":"Country","name":"India"}],"openingHoursSpecification":{"@type":"OpeningHoursSpecification","dayOfWeek":["Monday","Tuesday","Wednesday","Thursday","Friday","Saturday"],"opens":"10:00","closes":"18:30"},"founder":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"knowsAbout":["Cyber crime and IT Act matters","Data protection and DPDP Act compliance","Business, banking, intellectual property and tax","Legal drafting","Criminal law: bail, quash and appeals","Writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala","Civil, property and consumer matters","Family and succession matters","Service and labour matters"]},{"@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website"},"headline":"Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts After 1 July 2024: Section 63 BSA and the Certificate That Decides Cases","description":"WhatsApp chats, screenshots, CDRs and CCTV in Indian courts now fall under Section 63 BSA (new 65B): the dual-certificate rule, hash and preservation.","url":"https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/","mainEntityOfPage":"https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/","datePublished":"2026-09-01T00:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-09-01T00:00:00.000Z","keywords":"Section 63 BSA electronic evidence, Section 65B now Section 63, BSA certificate electronic evidence, how to prove WhatsApp chat in court India, electronic evidence hash certificate, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar certificate","inLanguage":"en-IN","author":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"image":"https://advaslam.com/og/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide.png","about":{"@type":"Service","@id":"https://advaslam.com/practice/cyber-crime/#service","name":"Cyber crime & IT Act matters","url":"https://advaslam.com/practice/cyber-crime/","provider":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice"}}},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://advaslam.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Articles","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts After 1 July 2024: Section 63 BSA and the Certificate That Decides Cases","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/"}]},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What replaced Section 65B of the Evidence Act?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which came into force on 1 July 2024 replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 63 carries forward the substance of Section 65B — the special procedure for proving electronic records — with a tightened certificate requirement in Section 63(4) and a prescribed form in the Schedule that now contemplates a hash value and dual signatures."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is a Section 63 certificate mandatory for every electronic record?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, where the electronic record is proved by secondary evidence — a printout, a forwarded copy, a screenshot, a CDR, a CCTV clip on a pen drive. The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) held that the certificate is a mandatory condition for admissibility and that a trial court cannot dispense with it. If the original device or original electronic record itself is produced and proved in the ordinary way, the Section 63 route is not needed, but in practice most records are copies that require the certificate."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Who must sign the Section 63 certificate under the BSA?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Section 63(4) of the BSA, read with the Schedule, contemplates a certificate signed by both the person in charge of the computer resource or communication device (or the person managing the relevant activity) and an expert — ordinarily an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000, though in May 2026 the Supreme Court observed that a person shown to have special skill in computer science and cyber forensics may also sign, keeping that question open — enclosing a hash report of the record. As advice: file the complete certificate with both signatures and a hash when the record is tendered. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar permits late filing before evidence closes, but that curability is not an entitlement to tender an incomplete certificate — an incomplete filing risks exclusion."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can a Section 63 certificate be filed late?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, within limits. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar the Supreme Court held that the certificate can be filed at any stage before the evidence is concluded, and the court can summon the certifier where necessary, so a prosecution or party that discovers the defect is not automatically shut out. But reliance on late filing is risky — the certificate should accompany the document when it is tendered, and a party that tenders electronic evidence without any certificate risks having the core of its case excluded."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Does forwarding a WhatsApp chat weaken its evidentiary value?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes. A forwarded copy or a screenshot of a forwarded message is a copy of a copy — at two removes from the original data on the device and the server. It is harder to certify, easier to challenge for tampering, and weaker corroboration than the original chat on the original device with its metadata and hash preserved. Preserve the original device, keep the chat in the app, and let the certificate be prepared from the primary source."}}]}]} ```