S.72 BSA: Courts Must Compare Signatures Themselves; Expert Evidence Cannot Be Called Routinely

Introduction

A disputed signature can change the entire course of a case.

Whether it appears on a will, sale deed, power of attorney, check, agreement, promissory note, or other important document, the question of who actually signed it is often the first question a court must answer before it can proceed to the larger controversy.

This is precisely why the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu & Anr., 2026 INSC 1085, deserves close attention.

The decision has generated considerable interest because it concerns the relationship between Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which permits judicial comparison of signatures and handwriting, and Section 39 BSA, which recognizes expert opinion on handwriting and finger impressions.

The headline doing the rounds is

“S.72 BSA: Courts Must Compare Signatures Themselves; Expert Evidence Cannot Be Called Routinely.”

There is an important truth behind that headline, but it needs to be stated with some legal precision.

The Supreme Court did not say that a judge must personally compare every disputed signature in every case. Nor did the Court abolish or discourage expert evidence as such.

Also Read: SLP vs Review Petition: Key Differences, Merger & Second SLP Explained

What the Court made clear is more nuanced and, in my view, more useful for trial practice:

A court cannot treat expert evidence as mandatory merely because it does not consider itself a handwriting expert. Section 72 gives the court the power to compare the disputed writing with admitted or proved material and reach its own conclusion. At the same time, the court retains the discretion to obtain expert assistance where doubt exists or the material is unclear, smudged, vague, or otherwise unsuitable for a safe judicial comparison.

That distinction is the real significance of the judgment.

The Supreme Court’s Latest Decision

The judgment is Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2026, arising out of SLP (C) No. 513 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1085, decided by a Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan.

The order was dated 18 September 2026.

The controversy arose from an eviction proceeding in which a will became relevant. The respondents sought to have the Will examined by a handwriting expert, contending that expert evidence was necessary to determine its genuineness.

The trial court declined that request.

The High Court, however, took a different view. It considered expert opinion essential and interfered with the trial court’s order.

The matter consequently reached the Supreme Court.

The question before the Supreme Court was essentially whether the court was obliged to send the disputed document for expert examination or whether it could itself undertake the comparison contemplated by Section 72 BSA.

The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s order and rejected the proposition that expert opinion was necessarily required.

Importantly, however, the Supreme Court did not itself pronounce upon the ultimate genuineness of the Will. The issue before it was whether expert examination was indispensable.

Also Read: Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Supreme Court – Complete FAQs Guide

Why Section 72 BSA Matters

Section 72 BSA occupies an interesting position in the law of evidence.

It recognizes something that is sometimes overlooked in litigation: the judge is not merely a passive recipient of evidence. The statute itself gives the court a power to compare disputed handwriting, signatures, and seals with material that has been admitted or proved to be genuine.

Section 72(1) permits comparison of a disputed signature, writing, or seal with another signature, writing, or seal that has been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been made by that person.

Section 72(2) further enables the court to direct a person present before it to write words or figures for the purpose of comparison.

Section 72(3) extends the provision, with necessary modifications, to finger impressions.

The provision is therefore not merely about expert evidence.

It gives the Court itself a statutory role in determining whether disputed writing corresponds with genuine writing.

Section 72 BSA and Old Section 73 of the Evidence Act

For practitioners who have spent years working with the Indian Evidence Act, there is nothing conceptually unfamiliar here.

Section 72 BSA substantially carries forward the framework of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Consequently, the extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence developed under Section 73 continues to be important.

Cases such as

• State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158;
• Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704;
• Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110;
• Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, (2008) 4 SCC 530; and
• Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406.

remain important in understanding how Section 72 should operate.

The numbering has changed. The fundamental judicial problem has not.

Can a Court Compare a Signature Itself?

Yes.

There is nothing legally impermissible about a judge comparing a disputed signature with a signature that has been admitted or proved to be genuine.

Indeed, that power is expressly recognized by Section 72.

The Supreme Court had already made this position clear in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram.

The court recognized that handwriting could be compared by an expert, by a person familiar with the handwriting, or by the court itself.

The important point is that the Court remains the ultimate adjudicator.

An expert may assist the court.

The expert does not decide the case.

That principle has now been reaffirmed in the context of the BSA.

But Is a Judge a Handwriting Expert?

This is where the matter becomes more delicate.

A judge has the statutory authority to compare handwriting.

That does not mean that the judge possesses the scientific training of a forensic document examiner.

There is an obvious difference between looking at two signatures and conducting a forensic handwriting examination.

A forensic examiner may consider such matters as:

• line quality;
• pen pressure;
• writing movement;
• speed;
• tremor;
• spacing
• letter formation;
• connecting strokes;
• natural variation;
• disguise;
• alteration; and
• Other characteristics that may not be apparent to an untrained eye.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned courts against assuming the role of handwriting experts.

That caution has not disappeared because Section 72 BSA exists.

Indeed, the correct understanding of the latest judgment is not that judges have suddenly acquired forensic expertise.

Rather, the Court has said that a judge cannot abdicate the statutory responsibility of adjudication simply by stating:

“I am not a handwriting expert.”

The Important Distinction in Gopal Pathak

The Supreme Court’s reasoning becomes much clearer when paragraphs 10 and 11 are read together.

The court recognized that the law gives the court a choice.

The court may:

• compare the disputed writing itself; or
• obtain an expert opinion.

The Court then made the equally important observation that the judge cannot simply refuse to exercise judicial responsibility on the ground that he or she is not an expert.

This is not the same thing as saying that the judge must personally undertake a forensic comparison in every case.

It means that the ultimate conclusion belongs to the court.

The expert’s opinion, where obtained, assists the Court.

It does not replace the Court.

That distinction is fundamental.

Expert Evidence Under Section 39 BSA

Section 39 BSA deals with opinions of experts.

It makes the opinion of a person especially skilled in the identity of handwriting or finger impressions relevant when the court has to form an opinion on that issue.

But there is a significant difference between saying that evidence is relevant and saying that evidence is mandatory.

Section 39 makes expert opinion relevant.

It does not create an inflexible rule that every disputed signature must be examined by a handwriting expert.

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of H.P. v. Jai Lal (1999) 7 SCC 280 remains instructive.

An expert provides the court with specialized knowledge and scientific criteria.

But the expert does not pronounce the judgment.

The Court must independently evaluate the opinion.

Principle	Legal Position
Expert opinion	Assistance, not adjudication.

What Gopal Pathak Actually Decided

The Supreme Court’s decision is narrower than some headlines suggest.

The Court held that the High Court was wrong in treating expert evidence under Section 39 as essential for determining the genuineness of the will.

The trial court was competent to deal with the disputed signature in accordance with Section 72.

The court also made it clear that where the court has doubt or where the writing or impression is smudgy, vague, or very light, expert assistance remains available.

That qualification is important.

It demonstrates that the Supreme Court has not created a rigid rule against expert examination.

The Court has instead preserved judicial discretion.

What the Supreme Court Did Not Hold

This part of the judgment is perhaps even more important than the headline.

The Supreme Court did not hold that:

• Every disputed signature must be compared personally by the judge.

Section 72 gives the court the power to compare. The court also has discretion to seek expert assistance.

• Handwriting experts are unnecessary.

They are not.

Section 39 expressly recognizes expert evidence concerning handwriting and finger impressions.

• Expert evidence is prohibited in signature disputes.

Nothing in the judgment says so.

• A judge can always rely upon naked-eye comparison.

That would be inconsistent with the caution contained in earlier Supreme Court decisions.

• Denial of a signature automatically requires expert examination.

It does not.

The court must consider the facts, the quality of the disputed material, the available comparison material and the overall circumstances.

• The Supreme Court declared the Will genuine.

It did not.

The Court dealt with the question of whether expert examination was essential.

Thiruvengadam Pillai: An Important Distinction

The respondents in Gopal Pathak relied upon Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, (2008) 4 SCC 530, to contend that expert examination was necessary.

That argument did not succeed.

There is a reason.

Thiruvengadam Pillai involved a disputed thumb impression which was unclear and faint.

The Supreme Court cautioned against a casual judicial comparison where the material itself was not sufficiently clear.

That principle remains perfectly sound.

But Gopal Pathak made it clear that Thiruvengadam Pillai cannot be transformed into a universal rule that an expert must be appointed in every dispute involving handwriting, signatures or impressions.

The factual context matters.

A clear signature capable of meaningful comparison is not necessarily the same evidentiary problem as a faint or smudged thumb impression.

That is why one must be careful before extracting a general rule from a judgment decided on materially different facts.

Ajay Kumar Parmar: Judicial Caution Still Matters

Another important authority is Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406.

The Supreme Court accepted that courts may compare signatures with the naked eye.

But it simultaneously cautioned against the court assuming the role of a handwriting expert.

The warning remains highly relevant.

A judge should be slow to base an important conclusion exclusively upon personal comparison, particularly where the writing is unclear or where the consequences of an incorrect finding are serious.

There is therefore no real contradiction between Ajay Kumar Parmar and Gopal Pathak.

The two decisions can be read together:

• The court has the power to compare, but the power must be exercised with judicial caution.
• Where expert assistance would materially improve the reliability of the decision, there is nothing in Section 72 that prevents the Court from obtaining it.

The Foundation: What Is the Comparison Being Made With?

There is another aspect of Section 72 which lawyers should not overlook.

The disputed signature cannot simply be compared with any convenient specimen.

Section 72 speaks of comparison with a signature, writing or seal which has been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been made by the person concerned.

That requirement is significant.

If the comparison signature is itself disputed, the exercise becomes circular.

A party cannot establish one disputed signature by comparing it with another equally disputed signature.

The foundation of the comparison therefore matters.

A Court Should Ask: What Material Do I Actually Have?

Before ordering expert examination—or rejecting such a request—the trial court should ask some practical questions.

Question	Why It Matters
Is the signature genuinely disputed?	A mere tactical denial should not automatically derail the proceedings.
Is there a reliable admitted or proved signature?	Without a meaningful standard, comparison becomes difficult.
Is the disputed signature clear?	A clear signature presents a different problem from a faint, blurred or damaged document.
Is the document central to the case?	If the entire claim or defence depends upon the disputed signature, greater caution may be justified.
Would expert examination materially assist?	This is perhaps the most practical question.

The court’s discretion should be exercised to advance a reliable adjudication—not merely to follow a procedural ritual.

Expert Evidence Should Not Become a Tool for Delay

There is also a procedural lesson in Gopal Pathak.

The request for expert examination was made substantially after the proceedings had commenced. The appellant pointed out that the trial had begun in 2020 and that evidence had already been recorded.

The Supreme Court took this procedural history into account.

This does not mean that delay automatically destroys a request for expert examination.

But it does mean that parties cannot ordinarily wait until the evidence is substantially complete and then seek to reopen the evidentiary process without a satisfactory explanation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu, Civil Appeal No. 13354 of 2025, decided on 4 November 2025, is also important in this context.

The Broader Lesson on Timing

The broader lesson is straightforward:

An application for expert examination should be made when the controversy actually arises, not kept in reserve as a procedural weapon for a later stage of the litigation.

What If the Document Is Only a Photocopy?

This is where lawyers must avoid mixing two different Supreme Court judgments.

The decision in Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan, 2026 INSC 134, concerned a different evidentiary problem involving a photocopy of a Power of Attorney and the requirements surrounding secondary evidence.

That judgment should not be presented as the source of the present Section 72 headline.

The distinction matters because signature comparison does not cure an inadmissible document.

If the original document has not been produced and the legal foundation for secondary evidence has not been established, the question of comparing the signature may itself be premature.

In other words:

A forensic comparison cannot cure a failure to prove the document.

Practical Guidance for Advocates

From the perspective of trial practice, the judgment provides useful guidance to both sides.

If You Are Relying on the Disputed Document

Identify clearly:

• the document;
• the signature;
• the person alleged to have signed it;
• the admitted or proved signatures available for comparison;
• the circumstances of execution; and
• the surrounding evidence supporting authenticity.

Do not assume that visual resemblance alone proves execution.

If You Are Challenging the Signature

Do not merely write:

“Signature denied. Send document to handwriting expert.”

Explain why expert assistance is actually required.

Identify:

• the specific disputed signature;
• the nature of the dispute;
• the available comparison material;
• the differences relied upon;
• any allegation of forgery;
• whether the writing is unclear;
• whether the document is central to the litigation; and
• why judicial comparison alone may not safely resolve the issue.

A well-reasoned application is far more likely to receive judicial consideration than a routine demand for forensic examination.

What About a Late Application?

Timing matters.

If the document was introduced at the beginning of the trial and the signature was disputed at that stage, a party should ordinarily consider its evidentiary strategy then.

Waiting until the conclusion of evidence can create a serious procedural difficulty.

The Court will naturally ask:

Why was the expert examination not sought earlier?

There may be perfectly legitimate answers in an individual case. But the applicant must provide them.

The law does not permit litigation to be endlessly reopened merely because a party has belatedly changed its evidentiary strategy.

Implications for Will Disputes

The judgment has obvious relevance to testamentary litigation.

But it should not be misunderstood.

Suppose a beneficiary produces a Will and the testator’s signature is disputed.

The question of signature is only one part of the case.

Other issues may include:

• execution;
• attestation;
• testamentary capacity;
• suspicious circumstances;
• free consent;
• participation of beneficiaries;
• conduct surrounding execution; and
• whether the Will represents the testator’s final testamentary intention.

Therefore, even if the signature is found genuine, that does not necessarily conclude the Will dispute.

Conversely, a disputed signature does not automatically make expert evidence mandatory.

Each evidentiary issue must be examined on its own footing.

Implications for Cheque Cases

The same principle can arise in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

An accused may deny the signature on a cheque.

But the court must consider the entire statutory and evidentiary framework.

The absence of a handwriting expert does not automatically destroy the complainant’s case.

Equally, a court should not treat a superficial resemblance between signatures as conclusive proof in a serious case where forgery is specifically alleged.

Section 72 is a tool of adjudication—not a substitute for a complete appreciation of evidence.

Implications for Forgery Prosecutions

Greater caution is warranted where the disputed signature forms the foundation of a criminal allegation of forgery.

The consequences of an erroneous finding are obviously more serious.

The principles stated in Ajit Savant Majagvai and Ajay Kumar Parmar therefore remain particularly relevant.

A criminal court should not casually transform its own visual impression into forensic certainty.

Where scientific assistance is genuinely required, the availability of Section 39 should not be ignored merely because Section 72 gives the court an independent power of comparison.

Section 39 and Section 72 BSA: Two Complementary Provisions

The easiest way to understand the statutory scheme is this:

Provision	Role
Section 39	Tells us when expert opinion is relevant.
Section 72	Tells us how the Court may itself undertake comparison.

The two provisions are therefore complementary rather than contradictory.

The expert does not decide whether the document is genuine.

The judge does.

But the judge may use specialised expert assistance in arriving at that conclusion.

That is the balance Parliament has preserved.

The Real Meaning of “Expert Evidence Cannot Be Called Routinely”

The expression “cannot be called routinely” should therefore be understood cautiously.

It should not mean:

“Never call an expert.”

It should mean:

Do not treat expert examination as an automatic procedural step every time a signature is denied.

The court should first examine whether expert assistance is actually required.

If the signature is clear, reliable admitted standards are available, the controversy is straightforward and the court is capable of reaching a reasoned conclusion, a reference may not be necessary.

But if the writing is faint, smudged, disguised or otherwise difficult to assess—or if the court genuinely entertains doubt—expert assistance may be entirely appropriate.

That is the more accurate reading of the judgment.

The Five Principles That Emerge

In practical terms, the present position can be reduced to five principles.

No.	Principle	Practical Meaning
1	Section 72 BSA Permits Judicial Comparison	The Court has statutory authority to compare disputed handwriting, signatures and seals.
2	The Judge Cannot Abdicate Adjudication	The Court cannot simply say, “I am not an expert,” and treat that as the end of the matter.
3	Expert Evidence Is Not Mandatory in Every Case	Section 39 makes expert opinion relevant; it does not make it indispensable in every signature dispute.
4	Expert Assistance Remains Available Where Circumstances Require It	Doubt, unclear or smudged material and other circumstances may justify forensic examination.
5	Judicial Comparison Requires Caution	The existence of Section 72 does not turn every judge into a handwriting expert.

That final principle is particularly important.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Section 72 BSA require a judge to compare every disputed signature personally?

No. Section 72 gives the Court the power to compare. Gopal Pathak makes clear that the Court cannot abdicate its responsibility merely because it is not a handwriting expert. However, it also recognises the Court’s discretion to seek expert assistance.

Is a handwriting expert compulsory whenever a signature is denied?

No. The Supreme Court expressly rejected the proposition that expert opinion under Section 39 is essential in every such case.

Can a court obtain expert evidence?

Yes. Section 39 BSA expressly recognises expert opinion concerning the identity of handwriting and finger impressions.

Is an expert’s opinion binding upon the Court?

No. Expert evidence is opinion evidence. The ultimate decision remains with the Court.

Can a judge compare signatures without an expert?

Yes. Section 72 expressly permits judicial comparison, subject to the necessary evidentiary foundation and judicial caution.

What if the signature or thumb impression is faint or unclear?

That is precisely the kind of situation in which expert assistance may become particularly valuable. Gopal Pathak itself recognises the relevance of expert assistance where the writing or impression is doubtful, smudgy, vague or very light.

Does Gopal Pathak mean that experts are no longer necessary in forgery cases?

No. The judgment does not lay down such a broad proposition. Its ruling concerned whether expert evidence was essential in the particular circumstances before the Court.

Conclusion

The significance of Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu lies not in eliminating handwriting experts, but in restoring the proper balance between judicial responsibility and expert assistance.

Section 72 BSA gives the Court the power to compare disputed signatures and handwriting. A judge cannot surrender that statutory responsibility merely by saying that he or she is not a handwriting expert.

But the converse is equally true.

Section 72 does not make forensic science irrelevant.

A judge’s ability to compare two signatures with the naked eye should never be confused with the specialised examination carried out by a trained forensic document examiner.

The Proper Balance Between Judicial Comparison and Expert Evidence

The better understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision is therefore this:

• Expert evidence is not a mandatory ritual in every disputed-signature case.
• Where the material is doubtful or the circumstances genuinely call for specialised assistance, the Court remains free—and in an appropriate case may be well advised—to obtain expert opinion.

The judgment is thus less dramatic than the headline, but far more useful to practising lawyers.

It tells trial courts not to abdicate their function.

It tells litigants not to demand expert examination as a matter of routine.

And, equally importantly, it reminds judges that having the power to compare a signature does not mean that every disputed signature should be decided casually by visual impression alone.

That is the balance Section 72 BSA seeks to achieve.

And that, in my view, is the real significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu, 2026 INSC 1085.

Need Legal Advice on a Disputed Signature, Will or Document?

A disputed signature can become a decisive issue in a Will dispute, property litigation, cheque case, forgery allegation, Power of Attorney dispute or civil proceeding. Whether a handwriting expert is necessary, whether the Court can compare the signature under Section 72 BSA, or how to challenge or prove the execution of a document can materially affect your case.

Do not leave such an important evidentiary issue to assumptions.

If your case involves Section 72 BSA, disputed signatures, handwriting expert evidence, document forgery, Will disputes or proof of execution, obtain professional legal guidance before taking the next procedural step.

Consult an Experienced Supreme Court Advocate

Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

• 📞 Call: 9650499965
• 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
• 📧 Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com

Discuss your case. Understand your evidentiary position. Take the right legal step before a disputed signature becomes a larger litigation problem.

Key Takeaways: Section 72 BSA & Disputed Signature Evidence

• Section 72 BSA empowers courts to compare disputed signatures, handwriting and seals with signatures or writings that have been admitted or proved genuine.
• The Supreme Court in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu & Anr., 2026 INSC 1085 clarified that handwriting expert evidence is not mandatory in every disputed-signature case.
• A court cannot refuse to decide the issue merely because the judge is not a handwriting expert. The court has a statutory responsibility to consider the disputed writing and reach its own conclusion.
• Section 39 BSA makes handwriting expert opinion relevant, but not automatically compulsory. Expert evidence remains an aid to the Court, not a substitute for judicial determination.
• Courts retain the discretion to obtain expert assistance where there is genuine doubt or where the signature, handwriting or impression is smudgy, vague, very light or otherwise difficult to assess.
• Judicial comparison and forensic examination are not the same thing. A judge has statutory power to compare signatures, but should not assume the role of a forensic handwriting expert.
• The Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Pali Ram, Murari Lal, Ajit Savant Majagvai, Thiruvengadam Pillai, and Ajay Kumar Parmar remain important in understanding the limits and safeguards surrounding signature comparison.
• Thiruvengadam Pillai does not establish a universal rule requiring expert evidence in every signature dispute. Gopal Pathak distinguished it, particularly because that case concerned an unclear finger impression.
• A party cannot ordinarily use a late expert application simply to reopen or delay proceedings. Timing and procedural conduct are relevant considerations.
• Section 72 BSA does not by itself prove execution of a document. Signature comparison must be considered alongside the other requirements for proving a Will, agreement, cheque, Power of Attorney or other instrument.
• In Will disputes, establishing the genuineness of a signature does not by itself prove testamentary capacity, proper attestation or absence of suspicious circumstances.
• In forgery and criminal cases, courts must exercise particular caution before relying solely on their own visual comparison of disputed handwriting.
• The central principle is simple: Section 72 BSA gives courts the power to compare signatures, while Section 39 BSA preserves the role of expert evidence where specialised assistance is genuinely required.
• The real lesson of Gopal Pathak is therefore not that handwriting experts are unnecessary, but that expert examination should not be treated as an automatic procedural requirement in every disputed-signature case.

Summary

Under Section 72 BSA, courts can compare disputed signatures themselves, and expert handwriting evidence is not mandatory in every case. However, courts may seek expert assistance where genuine doubt exists or the writing is unclear, smudged, vague or very light.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin alias Pappu, 2026 INSC 1085, confirms that judicial comparison and expert evidence are complementary safeguards rather than mutually exclusive alternatives.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965