Connect with us

Legally Speaking




The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 popularized the ideas of relevance and admissibility. Both appear to be the same to the naked eye and to most people. Principles of evidence, on the other hand, have a variety of meanings and aims. For those who are new to the field of law, the author here tries to explain topics through cases.


• Relevancy

• Admissibility


It is critical that the Law of Evidence be preserved and upheld. It can be employed in both the civil and criminal arenas of the law. It is beneficial to both the civil and criminal legal systems. The law of evidence aids in the enforcement of civil and criminal rights and punishments. Even procedural rules like the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure rely on evidence law for guidance. To have a successful criminal or civil case, the law of evidence is essential. The purpose of evidence law is to aid the court in separating the unimportant facts from the important ones in order to reduce the amount of time spent in court. The court determines what is essential for the prosecution or plaintiff to prove his or her case against the defendant or the state to prove a crime against the accused. The law of evidence is used by the court to establish what facts are essential. Two fundamental concepts of evidence law have been developed to help with this. Relevancy and admissibility are two separate issues.

Words such as “relevant” and “admissible” are frequently used in legal discourse. Even in the court of law, lawyers frequently use both interchangeably. The law of evidence relies heavily on both principles.


Connectivity is the key to relevance. Having a connection to something else. According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “relevant” means “connected with what is happening, relating to a subject or to something happening.” It is “having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand”. Another definition is “providing evidence that tends to establish or deny the thing at issue or that is being discussed.” The word “relevant” comes from the definition given by Collins Dictionary, which states that “the relevant object of a certain sort is the one that is appropriate.” Relevance is defined as “appropriate, apposite, relevant, germane, material, pertinent, pointed, and related.” These are all synonyms for relevancy.

A truth is significant to another, according to Jeremy Bentham’s definition, if it causes or tends to cause persuasion in the mind about the existence of some other fact .

Relative to the absence of the relevant evidence, the likelihood that an assertion is true increases or decreases” (looking for probative value).. The relationship between a piece of evidence and the hypothesis being tested is what we mean by “relevance .”

Relevancy is defined as the degree of relationship and probative value between a fact offered in evidence and the issue to be proved in Key to Evidence, written by Janab. A pair of facts is said to be “relevant” if they are connected in such a way that, in accordance with the ordinary sequence of events, either considered alone or in connection with other facts, demonstrates or makes plausible the past, present, or future existence or lack thereof of the other .

Relevance is defined in Indian evidence law as a fact that falls within any of the terms of the relevance chapter, from section 6 to section 55, in short. In addition, Section 5 explains how Sections 6 and 55 should be interpreted in respect to each other. It signifies that a fact should be relevant to the problem at hand. If any of the concepts from Sections 6 to 55 apply to the facts at issue, then that fact is significant. Sections 6 to 55 are all statements of law, hence the question of their relevance is a legal one.

As a result, saying that something is relevant is not a logical statement. Because of this, it’s also not a fact that anything is relevant. Despite the fact that a fact may be important to the situation at hand, it is only relevant if it falls within the scope of sections 6 to 55. Interestingly, however, anything that is logically important becomes relevant under any of the sections 6 to section 55 as evidence law, despite the fact that these sections were crafted with great care and attention to detail. It is the judge’s job to determine whether or not a fact exists based on the testimony of the witnesses verbally or documentarily. When a witness presents facts to the court, either verbally or in writing, the opposing party must object immediately if the information is irrelevant. As a matter of law, relevance can be argued at any point in a court case. The trial court should note in the order-sheet what the irrelevant fact was, what objections were made to it, and the basis for deeming it relevant, if any, so that it may be examined by the higher courts.

It was held by the court in Knapp v. State that the standard for determining the relevance of evidence is whether or not proving it would help decide the major question at trial. In other words ,

For example, the Bombay High Court recently revised numerous elements of the law of relevance to determine whether facts qualify as pertinent in L. C. Bhatia v State . A fact in issue or a relevant fact is “required to explain or introduce a fact; facts that support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact; facts that establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant; facts that fix the time and place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened; facts that show the relation of parties by whom any fact in issue or relevant fact was transacted.”


“The quality of being accepted or valid, especially as evidence in a court of law,” admissibility is defined as “n. the characteristic of being acceptable or valid.” The process by which the court decides whether or not the relevant evidence can be admitted by the court under the guidelines established by the Law of Evidence is known as admissibility. “The term admissibility may be used to refer to. Evidence that may be presented in a legal proceeding.” The ability to get in “legal principle that decides whether or not evidence is admissible in courts of law. Even if the evidence is important, it must still be admissible in court.”


The idea of admissibility is typically contrasted from relevance. Logic and common sense, practical or human experience, and knowledge of current events define relevance. It is important to note, however, that the admission of evidence is based first and foremost on its relevancy to a high degree of probative value as well as its compliance with any applicable exclusionary standards. Admission, not relevance, is the primary determinant of a case’s admissibility in court. Because of this, logical relevance and legal relevancy are sometimes used interchangeably. Lawyers are responsible for determining whether or whether evidence is relevant to a case, which is a matter of fact. The Supreme Court, in Ram Bihari Yadav vs. the State of Bihar , found that a person’s constitutional rights were not violated “Relevance and admissibility are often used interchangeably, but their legal meanings differ because facts that are relevant are not always admissible; similarly, facts that are admissible can sometimes be irrelevant, such as questions permitted in cross-examination to test the veracity or credit of witnesses, but which are not relevant, are admissible nonetheless. This is a common misunderstanding. Evidence’s probative value is determined by the weight it should be given based on the specifics of each case.” According to Section 136 of the Act, the court can determine whether a fact is important and the way in which it must be proven before it can be admitted. It is the court’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant information are presented to the court and to eliminate any extraneous facts. As early as section 5 on relevance, it provides that testimony may be submitted in any action or case as to whether every fact in question and such other…facts as subsequently will be determined to be relevant, and of no others, exists or does not exist. Indeed, judging on the issue of relevance can be a tough task for the Trial Judge because of its subtlety. Ideally, he should accept rather than deny the facts in questionable circumstances.

When evidence is made acceptable by the Evidence Act and when it is a widely recognised exemption to the rule against hearsay, the evidence does not become inadmissible simply because direct evidence is also available. “

When evidence is presented under Section 5 to 55 of the Evidence Code, it’s admissible in court. Due to other parts of the Act, relevant facts may not be admitted under Section 5 to 55 if they conflict with other sections of the Act. The Act’s major exclusionary criteria, as stated above, remove significant facts from consideration. Witness statements, confessions and proof of the defendant’s character are all examples of hearsay statements that can be used in a court of law to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.

Section 24 prohibits the use of any enticement, threat, or promise to gain a confession. Section 25 prohibits the admissibility of a confession made to a police officer who is not an Inspector. Section 26 prohibits the admissibility of an accused’s confessions made while in police custody, even if the confessions are important. A killer confessing to the officer that he killed the victim, for example, is pertinent, but it is not admissible and will be subject to Section 25’s penalties for admission. In the same way, if the killer confessed to a fellow prisoner, but not to a police officer, he may still be charged with murder. A new section of the penal code, this time u/s 26, applies since the confession was made while the police officer was in detention, even if he wasn’t the one to make the request.

There can be no evidence of an unrelated fact in court. Under some circumstances, evidence that is not relevant under Sections 5 to 55 may nonetheless be accepted. The following are a few examples: Section 32: Statement of pertinent facts by a person who is dead or cannot be located.

Section 155: Impeaching the credibility of a witness. The evidence of a witness may be corroborated by previous comments he or she has made. 157 of the Code.

“The Evidence Act governs whether or not a document is relevant and admissible as evidence, while the Code of Civil Procedure governs how it should be submitted in court and how the court should deal with it. Documents provided as evidence are not covered by the Evidence Act.”


Both being relevant and being admissible are equally important aspects of evidence. It is the responsibility of the court to admit the relevant evidence while simultaneously excluding the material that is not relevant to the case. Evidence is evaluated not just on its relevance but also on its ability to be admitted into a court of law. It is up to the judge to determine which pieces of evidence are pertinent to the issue at hand while simultaneously deciding which ones should be disregarded.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

Disproportionate assets case: Delhi High Court stays Lokpal proceedings initiated against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren



Disproportionate assets case: Delhi High Court stays Lokpal proceedings initiated against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren

On Monday, the Delhi High Court has stayed the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India under the provisions of the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013 against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief and Rajya Sabha MP Shibu Soren in connection with a disproportionate case of assets.

The bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma observed and has passed an order on Soren’s plea challenging the validity of the said proceedings, claiming that the same was ex facie bad in law and without jurisdiction.

In the present case, the proceedings were initiated by Lokpal of India pursuant to a complaint dated August 5, 2020 filed by BJP’s Nishikant Dubey. Therefore, it has been directed by the CBI to make a preliminary enquiry into the Complaint under section 20(1)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. It was claimed by Soren that the said order was not served on him.

While claiming the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious, Soren in his plea submitted that according to section 53 of the Act and there is a statutory bar against the Lokpal of India assuming jurisdiction to investigate or inquire into any Complaint made after the expiry of seven years from the offence alleged.

The plea reads that the initiation of the proceedings under the Complaint, or at the very least, continuation thereof, once it has been demonstrated by the preliminary inquiry that it pertains to alleged acquisitions prior to the 7-year period and is clearly barred by statute, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.

Further, the petition filled submits that the maximum period of 180 days for completion of preliminary enquiry from the date of Complaint expired on February 1, 2021. In this backdrop, it has been stated that by this time, only on July 1, 2021, the comments were sought from Soren which is beyond the prescribed statutory period.

The plea adds that the final preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the CBI on 29.06.2022, about a year and a half after expiry of the 180- day period. Such purported report is void and null and non-est in the eyes of law and cannot be received or considered by the Respondent No.1.

Thus, the court took note of the order passed by Lokpal of India dated August 4, 2022 directing that proceedings under section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act be initiated to determine whether a prima facie case existed to be proceeded against Soren. It is Soren’s case that the order was passed without considering the preliminary objection on jurisdiction being raised by him.

In the said order, the court noted that all the Lokpal of India recorded was that the comments received from the petitioner were forwarded to CBI so as to examine and submit an enquiry report.

It was ordered by the court that the challenge to assumption of jurisdiction by respondent no. 1 (the Lokpal of India) has neither been answered and nor dealt with. Matters require consideration. Subsequently, there will be a stay of proceedings pending before the Lokayukta.

Accordingly, the court will now hear the matter on 14 December.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking





The Delhi High Court in the case Narender @ Lala v. State Of NCT Of Delhi observed and has set aside the orders of conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man in 2018 who was unrepresented by a lawyer before the Trial Court. Thus, the Delhi High Court has remanded the case back to the Trial Court for cross examination of certain prosecution witnesses.

The division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed and was of the view that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice to the man as when number of witnesses were examined, he was not represented by a counsel and that the legal aid counsel, who was present before Trial Court and was appointed on the same day and asked to cross- examine the witnesses on the same day.

On March, 2018, Narender was convicted for offence of murder punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 4th May, 2018, he was sentenced by the Trial Court for life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.

In the present case, the case of the prosecution was that the man had committed murder of his wife by strangulating her to death.

In a appeal, it was argued by the man that during the substantial course of trial, he was not represented by a lawyer and hence the trial in the absence of a lawyer had seriously prejudiced him. He thus sought recalling of all the prosecution witnesses and thereby ensuring a fair trial.

The Court observed that the manner in which the trial is conducted, there was a serious denial of fair trial to the appellant and the appellant is required to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e., the witnesses examined in the absence of the lawyer, or the lawyer having been appointed on the same day from the legal aid and is asked to cross-examine the witnesses.

Further, the court remanded the back to Trial Court for cross-examination of ten prosecution witnesses. Also, the court directed the Trial Court Judge to follow due process of law and also to record the statement of the man under Section 313 CrPC and permit leading the defence evidence if so required.

The Court ordered that the case be listed before the learned Trial Court on 26th September, when Superintendent Tihar Jail will product the appellant before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking





The Supreme Court in the case Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational And Cultural Trust v. Hon’ble High Court Jharkhand And Ors. observed and has refused to entertain a plea challenging the non-inclusion of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes communities in the process of appointment of District Judges in pursuant to an advertisement issued in March, 2022 by the High Court of Jharkhand. The present petition claimed that the exclusion of reservation violates Jharkhand State Reservation Policy and constitutional guarantee under Article 16(4). Apart from this, it is also in derogation of a resolution being passed by the High Court vouching to implement reservation in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service.

The bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and the Justice Hima Kohli observed and has granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Jharkhand High Court.

The court while considering that the process of appointment as per the concerned notification is underway, Justice Chandrachud asked the petitioner to approach the High Court with respect to future appointments.

It stated that “For the future you can file a petition before the High Court… We will give you liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The bench of Justice Chandrachud observed that the Decisions of the Administrative side of the High Court can be challenged before the judicial side of the High Court. You can move the High Court.

In the present case, a writ petition challenging a similar notification was filed in 2017 before the High Court, which was eventually dismissed. It was observed by the High Court that there is no duty vested in the authorities to reserve seats for all posts, more particularly in higher judiciary. Moreover, it had already initiated the appointment process, the High Court opined that it cannot alter the rules midway. Thus, the appeal filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed.

However, in 2018 the Full Court of the Jharkhand High Court had agreed in principle to grant reservation in the recruitment for Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The advocates belonging to the SC/ST/OBC communities in 2021 had made representations to the Chief Justice of the High Court requesting for the implementation of the Reservation policy in appointment of District Judges (direct entry from Bar)/ superior judicial service. The impugned notification was issued without incorporating reservation for SC/ST/OBC communities in March 2022.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate on Record has filled the present petition.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Right to contest election is not a fundamental right; it is only a right conferred by statute: Supreme Court



Don’t compare Turban, Kirpan with Hijab: SC

The Supreme Court in the case Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs Election Commission of India observed that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute.

The bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by Vishwanath Pratap Singh that an individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as is required under the Act, to file his nomination without any proposer.

Also, the court imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on Singh.

In the present case, Singh had first approached the Delhi High Court challenging a notification issued by Election Commission of India for election to Rajya Sabha after he was not allowed to file his nomination without a proper proposer being proposing his name. His contentions were rejected by the High Court that his fundamental right of free speech and expression and right to personal liberty has been infringed.

While dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court observed that the writ petition before the High Court was entirely misconceived.

The bench observed while referring to earlier judgments viz Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 and Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 2 SCC 445 wherein it was stated that the right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute.

However, the Supreme Court in Javed (supra) had made the following observations: Right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right and it is a right conferred by a statute. At the most, in view of Part IX having been added in the Constitution of India that a right to contest election for an office in Panchayat may be said to be a constitutional right and a right originating in the Constitution and given shape by a statute. But even if, it cannot be equated with a fundamental right. It is stated that there is nothing wrong in the same statute which confers the right to contest an election also to provide for the necessary qualifications without which a person cannot offer his candidature for an elective office and also to provide for disqualifications which would disable a person from contesting for, or from holding, an elective statutory office.

It was held in Rajbala (supra) that the right to contest for a seat in either of the two bodies is subject to certain constitutional restrictions and could be restricted further only by a law which the parliament made.

Further, the court added that Singh did not have any right to contest election to the Rajya Sabha in terms of the law made by the Parliament.

The Court stated while dismissing the SLP that the Representation of People Act, 1950 read with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 has contemplated the name of a candidate to be proposed while filling the nomination form. However, it cannot be claimed by an individual that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Post-conviction compounding of offences is permissible: Himachal Pradesh High Court



The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Shri Kantu Ram v Shri Beer Singh recently observed that a court, while exercising powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and can proceed to compound the offences even after recording of conviction by the courts below.

The bench comprising of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed in a case where the revision Petitioner, who was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act by the Magistrate Court and was aggrieved by subsequent dismissal of appeal by the Sessions Court and had agreed to pay the amount due and settle the matter.

Thus, the petitioner had sought compounding of offences.

In the present case, the respondent admitted the factum with regard to receipt of the amount due from the accused and expressed that the prayer made on behalf of accused for compounding of offence can be accepted.

However, the High Court allowed the prayer and the offence committed by the Petitioner under Section 138 NI Act was ordered to be compounded.

The Court observed that the Reliance was placed on Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the NI Act and can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of the conviction by the courts below.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

‘Pensionary benefits to employee, who is removed from service for misconduct, is not at par with those who retire on superannuation’



The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case Bashir Ahmad Wani v Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank and Another recently observed and stated that an employee who is removed from service for misconduct is not at par with those who is being retired on superannuation.

The bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed while dismissing the pension claim made by a former employee of the J&K Grameen Bank, who was removed from service in 2011.

In the present case, the petitioner had sought benefit of the J&K Grameen Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 whereby provision was made for terminal benefits.

However, the court disallowed the claims on two grounds:

Firstly, that at the time of removal of the petitioner from service when there were no norms, rules or regulations providing for the benefit of pension to the employees of the respondent-Bank.

In the year 2011, the employees of the respondent-Bank were governed by the J&K Grameen Bank ( the Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010… it is abundantly clear that it does not prescribe imposition of a penalty of removal along with the pensionary benefits.

Secondly, it was opined by the court that though the 2018 Regulations had been made applicable to those employees who were in service between 1st day of September, 1987 and 31st day of March, 2010 and the employees retired from the services of the Bank before 31st day of March, 2018, however, this leeway cannot come to aid of the Petitioner.

The Curt observed that the reason for finding that the Petitioner was not an employee who had “retired” on superannuation from the bank. Rather, he was “removed” for misconduct.

The Court stated that the regulations apply to those employees who retired from the service of the Bank before 31.03.2018 and not the employees who were terminated for misconduct. Viewed thus, the order of removal of the petitioner dated 02.09.2011 holding the petitioner entitled to terminable benefits and cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed to be an order of removal with the benefit of the pension. Neither, the petitioner, at the time of his removal from service, nor with the promulgation of Pension Regulations of 2018, is entitled to the benefit of pension.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

Continue Reading