Courts: Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Expert Testimony

The Indian judicial system is a single integrated pyramid, unlike the United States where federal and state courts run parallel. At the apex sits the Supreme Court of India under Article 124 of the Constitution. It has original jurisdiction in Centre-State disputes (Article 131), writ jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 32), appellate jurisdiction over High Courts (Articles 132 to 134), advisory jurisdiction on a presidential reference (Article 143), and the special leave to appeal (Article 136). The Chief Justice of India presides, and the sanctioned strength is 34 judges.

Below the Supreme Court sit the High Courts under Article 214, one per state or group of states. India has 25 High Courts as of 2026, the youngest being the High Courts of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur and Meghalaya (carved in 2013 and 2019). Each High Court exercises writ jurisdiction under Article 226, supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts under Article 227, and appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. The Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts retain original criminal jurisdiction for the limits of the presidency towns.

At the district level, the judiciary splits into a civil side and a criminal side. The District Judge heads the civil side (District Court, Senior Civil Judge, Junior Civil Judge, Small Causes Court). The same officer wears a second hat as Sessions Judge on the criminal side under BNSS 2023, with Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges below. The Sessions Court tries offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding seven years.

Below the Sessions Court sit the magistrate courts. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) supervises Judicial Magistrates First Class (JMFC) and Second Class within the district. Metropolitan areas have a parallel structure of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and Metropolitan Magistrates. Judicial magistrates conduct trials; executive magistrates

Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court to hear and decide a matter. NTA tests three classification axes.

Territorial jurisdiction is geographic. Under BNSS 2023 Section 197 (formerly CrPC Section 177) every offence is ordinarily inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Special rules cover continuing offences (Section 199), offences committed partly inside and partly outside (Section 198), and offences committed on a journey (Section 201). A bank fraud committed online from Bengaluru with the victim's account in Lucknow can be tried at either place, a point the Karnataka High Court repeatedly clarifies.

Pecuniary jurisdiction is monetary, mainly a civil-side concept. A Small Causes Court in Mumbai, for instance, hears suits up to a notified value; above that, the City Civil Court takes over. The criminal courts have a parallel concept in sentencing limits: JMFC can pass a sentence of up to three years imprisonment and fine up to fifty thousand rupees under BNSS 2023 Section 23.

Subject-matter jurisdiction restricts a court to certain case types. A family court cannot try a murder. A POCSO court cannot try a customs offence. A Sessions Court cannot take cognisance of offences directly; the magistrate commits them under BNSS 2023 Section 232.

Courts also exercise three modes of jurisdiction.

• Original jurisdiction: the court is the first forum to decide. Sessions Court for serious criminal trials; District Court for civil suits above the JMFC limit; Supreme Court under Article 131 for Centre-State disputes.
• Appellate jurisdiction: the court reviews decisions of lower courts. High Court hears appeals from District and Sessions Courts; Supreme Court hears appeals from High Courts.
• Revisional jurisdiction: the High Court may, under BNSS 2023 Section 442 (formerly CrPC 401), call for and examine records of any lower court to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or order.

The India-specific anchor most NET aspirants miss: under BNSS 2023 the cognisance powers, summons issuance, and remand timelines are unchanged in substance from CrPC 1973 but renumbered. Section numbers in MCQ stems will start citing BNSS, so memorise the new numbers.

Admissibility under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA, replacing the Indian Evidence Act 1872 from 1 July 2024) works in three stages: is the fact relevant, is the source of proof admissible, and what weight does the court give it. Relevancy is the gateway, controlled by BSA Sections 6 to 55 (carrying forward IEA Sections 6 to 55 almost verbatim). A fact is relevant when it has a logical connection with a fact in issue: facts forming part of the same transaction (Section 6), occasion or cause (Section 7), motive or preparation (Section 8), conduct (Section 8), and so on.

The hearsay rule says that a witness can only testify to what they personally perceived, not to what someone else told them. Several exceptions ease this: dying declarations (BSA Section 26), admissions (Sections 15 to 21), confessions (Sections 22 to 25), and entries in books of account (Section 28).

The opinion rule is the gateway to expert evidence. The general rule is that opinions are inadmissible (witnesses testify to facts). The exceptions are listed in BSA Sections 39 to 45 (formerly IEA 45 to 51). Section 39, the headline section, makes the opinion of a person specially skilled in foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting or finger impressions relevant. Section 40 covers opinion on identity of handwriting. Sections 41 to 44 cover opinion on relationship, custom, usage, and on the meaning of a word.

Electronic evidence has a separate door. BSA 2023 Section 61 lays down that nothing in the Act shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record on the ground that it is electronic. BSA Section 62 says electronic records are documents. BSA Section 63 (the renumbered IEA 65B) requires a certificate signed by a person in charge of the device producing the printout or copy, identifying the device and the manner of production. The Supreme Court fixed the doctrine in two stages: Anvar P V v P K Basheer (2014) held the Section 65B certificate mandatory (overruling Navjot Sandhu, 2005), and

The statutory definition of an expert is contained in BSA 2023 Section 39 (formerly IEA Section 45): a person specially skilled in foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting or finger impressions. The qualifying word is skill. The Supreme Court has read this expansively: skill may be acquired by formal training, by practical experience, or by a combination of the two. There is no requirement of a university degree as such, though in modern Indian practice a Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), CFSL or SFSL scientific officer, or a state forensic laboratory director will hold an MSc or PhD in forensic science along with departmental certification.

Two cases anchor the standard and weight of expert opinion in NET MCQs.

Murari Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh (1980, Supreme Court). The court held that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert is a weak species of evidence and ought to be received with great caution. There is, however, no inflexible rule that expert opinion must always be corroborated; if the expert opinion is convincing on its own and the court is satisfied with its quality, conviction can be based on it even without corroboration. The case is the standard NET answer to the question, "is corroboration of expert opinion mandatory?".

Wadeer (also cited as Wazir / S Gopal Reddy) lines and State of HP v Jai Lal (1999). These elaborate that the duty of an expert is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of conclusions so that the judge may form his own independent judgment by applying these criteria to facts proved in evidence. The expert is not the decision-maker; the judge is.

State of Maharashtra v Damu (2000, Supreme Court). Cited often on circumstantial evidence and expert opinion linking the accused to the crime through forensic findings.

The standard NET list of types of experts runs:

• Handwriting expert (GEQD, Shimla / Hyderabad / Kolkata; CFSL document divisions). See

The procedural rules for compelling exemplars and admitting expert reports moved from CrPC 1973 to BNSS 2023 with effect from 1 July 2024. The substance is largely preserved; the section numbers are new and that is what NET will test.

BNSS 2023 Section 348 (formerly CrPC 311A / IEA 73 read together) is the power to direct any person, including an accused, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, or fingerprints, or voice samples (after the Ritesh Sinha 2019 ruling expanded the scope) for the purpose of investigation or proceeding. The magistrate must record reasons and the order is appealable. The constitutional question of self-incrimination under Article 20(3) was settled in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010), which barred involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping but expressly preserved the legitimacy of physical exemplars like fingerprints, handwriting and voice samples.

BNSS 2023 Section 51 (formerly CrPC 53) authorises medical examination of an arrested person by a registered medical practitioner on a police officer's request, including the use of force where reasonably necessary. BNSS 2023 Section 52 (formerly CrPC 53A) deals specifically with medical examination of a person accused of rape, requiring examination by a government medical officer within 24 hours and a written report identifying injuries, time elapsed since intercourse, age, and DNA-sample collection. BNSS 2023 Section 329 (formerly CrPC 293) covers reports of certain government scientific experts and gives them the presumption of admissibility.

Summons procedure is in BNSS 2023 Sections 63 to 71 for summons and Sections 72 to 81 for warrants. The court summons the expert by issuing a Form-1 summons; if the expert is a public servant, the summons is sent through the head of the department. Refusal to obey a summons can attract proceedings under BNS 2023 Section 222 (formerly IPC 174).

Expert-report formalities require: the expert's name, qualifications, designation, address; date and place of receipt of the exhibits; description of the seal, packing and chain-of-custody papers; the technique used; the observations; the conclusion; signature and date; and the parent laboratory's letterhead. The report is treated as substantive evidence under BNSS Section 329, subject to the court's discretion to summon the expert. The interplay with the

Once the expert enters the witness box, BSA 2023 Section 142 (formerly IEA Section 138) governs the order of examination. The expert is first administered an oath or affirmation under the Oaths Act 1969. The party that called the expert (usually the prosecution for a CFSL or SFSL officer) then conducts examination-in-chief. Leading questions on disputed facts are not permitted in chief without the permission of the court (BSA Section 146, formerly IEA Section 142). The expert states their qualifications, the exhibits received, the method applied, the observations, and the conclusion. The report can be exhibited and read into the record.

The defence then conducts cross-examination. Leading questions are permitted in cross (BSA Section 147, formerly IEA Section 143). The defence will typically probe: chain of custody from the scene to the laboratory, the calibration and validation of the instrument, the expert's training and experience, alternative interpretations of the data, and any deviation from the laboratory's standard operating procedure. NET MCQs often test the right to ask leading questions in cross-examination and the prohibition in chief.

The party that called the expert may then conduct re-examination under BSA Section 142, limited to clarifying matters that arose in cross-examination. New matter requires the court's permission and the right of further cross.

When the expert turns adverse to the calling party, the calling party may, with the court's permission under BSA 2023 Section 157 (formerly IEA Section 154), put leading and contradicting questions to its own witness. The witness is then said to be declared hostile. Note carefully: a hostile witness's evidence is not automatically discarded; the court evaluates the consistent and credible portions.

Special procedural points worth pinning for NET:

• Refreshing memory: under BSA Section 161 (formerly IEA Section 159), an expert may refresh memory by referring to the report or laboratory notebook prepared contemporaneously.