Tuesday, 6 October 2026
Contact the desk
The Legal Alpha

Legal news and analysis

National

Judges Cannot Outsource Signature Comparison to Experts: Supreme Court Reaffirms Courts' Power Under Section 72 BSA

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 6 October 2026 · 5 min read
Judges Cannot Outsource Signature Comparison to Experts: Supreme Court Reaffirms Courts' Power Under Section 72 BSA

The Supreme Court of India has held that trial courts cannot routinely refer disputed signatures to handwriting experts, ruling that judges must independently compare disputed and admitted writings using their own statutory powers under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

A division bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan allowed a civil appeal in a Gwalior eviction dispute filed by Gopal Pathak against Nitin alias Pappu. The apex court set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had directed a disputed Will to be sent to a forensic handwriting expert.

Restoring the trial court's decision that declined the request for expert evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that expert opinion under Section 39 BSA is not a mandatory requirement whenever a signature is contested. The bench held that courts cannot abdicate their judicial duty by claiming they are not handwriting experts, clarifying that expert intervention should be restricted strictly to cases where writings are smudgy, faint, or where the judge entertains genuine technical doubt.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Civil Procedure / Law of Evidence
Sub-topic: Section 72 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) / Admissibility and Discretionary Scope of Handwriting Expert Evidence

Core Legal Issue

Does a trial court have the primary duty under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) to compare disputed handwriting and signatures with admitted specimens, or must every disputed signature be routinely referred to a forensic expert under Section 39 BSA?

Furthermore, does the Supreme Court's earlier precedent in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal create an absolute bar preventing trial judges from evaluating disputed handwriting without expert assistance?

What Did the Court Decide?

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal filed by Gopal Pathak, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated 27 October 2025 and restoring the trial court's order dated 6 October 2025.

The bench held that a trial judge cannot avoid the responsibility of comparing signatures by asserting a lack of technical expertise. The Court held that summoning expert witnesses must not become a routine procedural step that delays civil trials.

The Supreme Court distinguished its 2008 decision in Thiruvengada Pillai, explaining that its cautions were specific to faint or smudgy thumb impressions and do not prohibit judges from comparing clear handwriting or signatures. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the underlying eviction proceedings without delay.

Key Legal Points

  • The Supreme Court held that expert evidence cannot be summoned routinely on the mere ground that a signature or handwriting is disputed by a party.

  • Under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, comparing disputed writings with admitted specimens is the court's own statutory task and cannot be outsourced to experts as a matter of course.

  • The bench clarified that the power to call for expert opinion under Section 39 BSA is discretionary and should be invoked only when the court entertains genuine doubt or when the writing is smudgy, faint, or technically defective.

  • The Court distinguished the precedent in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal, holding that its warning against judicial comparison applied specifically to fingerprint impressions rather than visible signatures.

  • The bench signaled that belated applications seeking forensic expert examination, filed after evidence has been substantially concluded, are frequently dilatory tactics that warrant strict judicial scrutiny.

Relevant Law

  • Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Statutory power of the court to compare disputed signatures, writings, or seals with admitted specimens (corresponding to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

  • Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Admissibility and scope of expert opinions (corresponding to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

  • Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Courts in interlocutory trial orders.

  • Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 541: Precedent on the hazards of judicial comparison of thumb impressions (distinguished).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Appellant (Gopal Pathak):
Represented by Advocates Neelakshi Bhadauria, Sarthak Karol, and Advocate-on-Record Akriti Chaubey, the appellant argued that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining the belated plea for expert evidence. Counsel submitted that the trial court was well-equipped under Section 72 BSA to examine the admitted and disputed signatures on the Will. They contended that sending the document to an expert at the fag end of the trial was a dilatory maneuver aimed solely at delaying the eviction of an unauthorized occupant.

Respondent (Nitin alias Pappu & Anr.):
Represented by Advocate Tanya Raizada, the respondents contended that whenever the genuineness of a signature on a testamentary document like a Will is contested, placing reliance on a judge's visual comparison carries immense risk. Relying on Thiruvengada Pillai, the respondents argued that judges are not forensic scientists and that justice demands an objective scientific assessment by a handwriting expert to uncover forgery.

Why Does It Matter?

This verdict addresses a persistent source of delay in civil and commercial litigation across Indian courts: the routine, tactical filing of applications to send documents to government forensic science laboratories (FSL) or private handwriting examiners. Forensic examinations in India often stall trial proceedings for years due to massive backlogs in forensic departments.

By affirming that trial judges possess both the authority and the responsibility to compare signatures under Section 72 of the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Supreme Court discourages dilatory litigation tactics. The judgment provides trial judges with clear backing to dispose of frivolous expert referral applications, accelerating civil trials and ensuring that forensic referrals are reserved for genuinely complex, illegible, or smudgy evidence.

Legal Takeaway

The Supreme Court has clarified that judges cannot sidestep comparing disputed signatures under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam by routinely referring them to handwriting experts. Expert evidence is not mandatory in every handwriting dispute and should only be summoned where the court faces genuine technical ambiguity or illegible impressions that preclude a reliable judicial comparison.

Sources

  • Primary Source: Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin Alias Pappu & Anr. (Civil Appeal decided by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan, reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1018).

  • Additional Sources: LiveLaw Supreme Court Report; LawChakra Legal Report.

Related reporting