A disputed signature or handwriting can sometimes determine the fate of an entire case. Whether a person executed a Will, signed a cheque, acknowledged a liability, or wrote a threatening letter may lead to one question: who wrote it?
Recently, the Supreme Court in Gopal Pathak vs Nitin Alias Pappu & Anr. (2026 LiveLaw (SC)1018) observed that court must compare signatures themselves, expert evidence cannot be called routinely in handwriting disputes. The law permits courts to compare handwriting. However, that does not necessarily mean that a judge can safely and routinely undertake a task that ordinarily requires specialised expertise.
A court may be competent to compare handwriting but that does not make the judge a handwriting expert. The distinction assumes greater significance today, when technology has made it easier for fraudsters to forge, manipulate and reproduce signatures with increasing sophistication.
The Statutory Position under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) substantially carries forward the evidentiary law governing handwriting under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 39(1) of the BSA expressly recognises the relevance of expert opinion when the court has to form an opinion regarding the identity of handwriting. A person specially skilled in such questions is treated as an expert. The statutory illustration specifically contemplates an expert comparing a disputed document with another document admitted or proved to have been written by the concerned person. Section 41 separately recognises the opinion of a person acquainted with another person's handwriting.
Most significantly, Section 72 provides: “Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.” The provision authorises the court to compare a disputed signature, writing or seal with a signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to have been made by that person. It also permits the court to direct a person present before it to write words or figures for the purpose of comparison. Thus, the statutory scheme itself recognises three distinct evidentiary routes: expert opinion, opinion based upon familiarity with handwriting, and comparison by the court.
Section 72 of the BSA: A power, not a qualification
Section 72 of the BSA substantially carries forward Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But Section 72 does not say that the judge possesses specialised knowledge of handwriting examination. Nor does it dispense with Section 39 of the BSA, which expressly recognises the relevance of the opinion of persons specially skilled in questions concerning the identity of handwriting or finger impressions.
The legislative scheme thus recognises both specialised expert opinion, and judicial comparison. Section 72 of the BSA permits judicial comparison of handwriting. But where the identity of a disputed signature is a material issue, a judge—who is not a handwriting expert—be expected to decide authorship merely by looking at the writings.
The Perils of Judicial Comparison of Signatures
A signature can be deceptively persuasive. Two signatures may appear strikingly similar yet be written by different persons, while the genuine signature of the same person may vary with age, health, writing conditions, speed, or the instrument used. Visual resemblance, therefore, is not necessarily proof of authorship. Handwriting identification involves specialised examination of features such as letter formation, connecting strokes, pen pressure, proportion, slant, spacing and writing speed. Although Indian evidence law permits courts to compare disputed handwriting with admitted or proved specimens, such comparison cannot be equated with a scientific or expert examination.
The real danger lies in treating visual similarity as conclusive. A signature may be imitated, copied or deliberately altered; conversely, genuine signatures may evolve over time. The shorter the signature, the fewer the features available for meaningful comparison, this possibility of coincidental similarity or imitation cannot simply be dismissed by visual impression. The danger, therefore, is not confined to cases where the differences are difficult to see. The more fundamental danger is that apparent similarity itself may create a false sense of certainty.
The Supreme Court's Previous Warning.
In State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14, the Supreme Court recognised that the court could compare handwriting. But it simultaneously emphasised prudence and caution.
The Supreme Court explained that handwriting comparison involves analysis of characteristics in admitted or proved writings and identification of those characteristics in the disputed writing. The Court recognised the role of the handwriting expert in bringing those materials and reasons before the court. Significantly, it said that a judge should not ordinarily take upon himself the task of comparing writings where the disputed handwriting constitutes the crucial foundation of the prosecution case and obtaining expert opinion and assistance was described as the prudent course.
The Allahabad High Court in 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 80, held that court doesn't have skill, expertise to match signatures in documents and should obtain handwriting expert opinion. This is perhaps the most sensible approach. The judge remains the final decision-maker. The expert supplies specialised assistance. The judge then assesses the expert's reasons, the writings, and the other evidence. That is very different from saying that the judge can simply look at two signatures and arrive at a forensic conclusion.
The Judge's Visual Opinion Cannot Be Cross-Examined
A further reason for preferring expert assistance in handwriting cases is simple: a judge cannot be cross-examined on the judge's own visual comparison. An expert who identifies two signatures as being specialized must explain the similarities, differences, methodology, natural variations, possibility of imitation, and limitations of the examination. That reasoning can then be tested through cross-examination. A judge who personally compares two signatures faces no such scrutiny. The conclusion may be explained in the judgment and challenged in appeal, but the parties cannot question why a particular stroke, slant, connecting line or letter formation was treated as significant.
Cross-examination therefore does more than test credibility, it tests the reasoning behind a specialised opinion and can expose overlooked differences, faulty assumptions or methodological weaknesses. The final decision remains with the judge. But where handwriting evidence is material or decisive, the specialised reasoning supporting that conclusion should, wherever reasonably necessary, be identifiable, reasoned and open to adversarial scrutiny, rather than rest solely on the judge's unaided visual impression.
The Paradox: Even Expert Evidence is not Infallible
There is another important reason why the court should not treat handwriting comparison lightly. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that handwriting expert evidence itself is not infallible. In Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091, the Supreme Court described handwriting expert evidence as opinion evidence requiring great caution and held that it was unsafe to base a conviction solely upon such opinion without substantial corroboration.
More recently, the Supreme Court has continued to reiterate the caution surrounding handwriting expert evidence. In C. Kamalalkkannan vs State of Tamil Nadu (2025 Livelaw (SC) 287), the Court again referred to the settled principle that handwriting expert evidence must be approached cautiously as it is still an imperfect science.
If even a trained handwriting expert's opinion must be treated with caution, a court's unaided visual impression should ordinarily be treated with still greater caution.
Way Forward: Cautious and Balanced Approach.
An expert's opinion is opinion evidence. The expert does not decide whether a document was forged, whether an accused is guilty, or whether a party has proved its case. Those are judicial questions. The expert should instead provide the court with the specialised analysis necessary to evaluate the handwriting.
The judge should then scrutinise the admitted standards used for comparison; the quality and authenticity of those standards; the similarities identified by the expert; the differences identified by the expert; the methodology employed; the possibility of natural variation; the possibility of imitation or disguise; and the consistency of the expert opinion with the remaining evidence.
This is the more appropriate method of evaluating the disputed handwriting.
Judicial Comparison Should Be the Exception, Not A Substitute for Expertise.
The recent view of the Supreme Court arguably permits too much room for a casual approach, making expert opinion an exception. Because Section 72 expressly allows comparison by the court, there is a temptation to treat expert evidence as unnecessary whenever the judge believes the signatures “look alike”. A judge is an adjudicator, not a forensic document examiner. A visually similar signature may have been produced by another person; a genuine signature may vary; an apparently distinctive feature may not be as distinctive as it appears.
The very existence of specialised handwriting expertise is a reason for courts to use it when the circumstances call for it. The ideal judicial approach is neither blind dependence on experts nor confident reliance upon unaided eyesight. It is a combination of expert analysis, judicial scrutiny and independent corroboration.
Where the authenticity or authorship of handwriting or a signature is a material issue, and particularly where the disputed writing constitutes a significant or decisive link in the case, the court should ordinarily obtain expert assistance before drawing an adverse finding solely from visual comparison. Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam confers a power of comparison; it should not be construed as conferring specialised forensic expertise upon the court. Expert assistance is ordinarily the safer and more scientifically informed course.
The judge must remain the final decision-maker. As the familiar principle on bail goes, “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” in the same spirit: “Expert opinion should be the rule; judicial comparison an exception”. That exception is ONLY when the disputed and admitted signature/handwriting are patently different.
The judicial eye should be assisted by the expert hand. That is not an abdication of judicial responsibility. It is the responsible exercise of it.
Author is an Advocate practicing at Karnataka High Court. Views are personal.