- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Status of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Means
General Position under Indian Law
The general approach of the Indian legal system is that evidence does not become inadmissible merely because it has been obtained illegally or improperly. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam primarily focuses on the relevancy of facts rather than the manner in which evidence is collected. Therefore, if evidence is relevant and genuine, it may still be admitted even though it was procured through unlawful or irregular methods.
However, such evidence must not violate constitutional safeguards, especially the protection against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Relevancy as the Test of Admissibility
Indian courts have consistently maintained that relevancy is the primary criterion for admissibility of evidence. Since the BSA does not expressly prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence, courts generally admit such material if it assists in determining the truth and its authenticity is established.
The illegality involved in obtaining the evidence may affect the weight or credibility attached to it, but ordinarily does not bar its admissibility.
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
In State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, the Supreme Court examined intercepted telephone conversations obtained allegedly in violation of the Telegraph Act and related rules.
The Court held that non-compliance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act or Rule 419A does not by itself make the intercepted conversations inadmissible in evidence. The Court pointed out that the Telegraph Act does not contain any specific rule excluding such evidence. Therefore, the intercepted telephonic communication remained admissible despite procedural irregularities.
Magraj Patodia v R.K. Birla
In Magraj Patodia v R.K. Birla, a witness who produced certain documents could not satisfactorily explain how he obtained them. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that a document procured through improper or illegal means does not become inadmissible if its relevance and genuineness are proved.
Thus, the focus remained on authenticity and relevance rather than the legality of procurement.
Bharati Tamang v Union of India
In Bharati Tamang v Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that relevancy is the true test of admissibility. Unless there is an express or implied constitutional or statutory prohibition, evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure cannot automatically be excluded.
The Court emphasized that Indian law does not generally follow the strict exclusionary rule adopted in some foreign jurisdictions.
Madhu v State of Karnataka
In Madhu v State of Karnataka, the Court held that evidence collected by improper means remains admissible if it is relevant and genuine. However, courts must scrutinize such evidence carefully and ensure that no prejudice has been caused to the accused or affected party.
Thus, the Court adopted a cautious but practical approach.
Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana
In Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana, video recordings of television broadcasts showing the conduct of certain legislators were relied upon in proceedings under the Tenth Schedule relating to disqualification.
The recordings were authenticated by television channels regarding their contents and origin. Since the concerned members failed to specifically challenge the genuineness of the recordings and merely made general denials, the Speaker was justified in relying upon them.
This case demonstrated judicial acceptance of electronic evidence even when questions were raised regarding its procurement.
Yashwant Sinha v CBI (Rafale Review Case)
In Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v CBI, review petitions concerning the Rafale deal were supported by documents published in The Hindu newspaper. The Attorney General argued that the documents had been illegally removed from the Ministry and therefore should not be relied upon.
The Supreme Court rejected this objection and accepted the review petitions. Justice K.M. Joseph observed that under both English and Indian common law, the manner in which evidence is obtained is generally not decisive for admissibility. What primarily matters is the relevance of the material.
The Court clarified that illegally procured evidence may still be considered by courts unless specifically barred by law.
Constitutional Limitation
Although illegally obtained evidence is generally admissible, courts cannot permit evidence gathered in violation of constitutional protections such as Article 20(3), which protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
Therefore, evidence obtained through coercion, compulsion, or forced self-incrimination may be excluded.
Conclusion
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the admissibility of evidence primarily depends upon its relevance and authenticity rather than the legality of the method by which it was obtained. Indian courts have repeatedly held that illegally or improperly collected evidence may still be admitted unless there is a specific constitutional or statutory prohibition. At the same time, courts remain cautious while evaluating such evidence and ensure that constitutional protections and principles of fairness are not violated.
General Position under Indian Law
The general approach of the Indian legal system is that evidence does not become inadmissible merely because it has been obtained illegally or improperly. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam primarily focuses on the relevancy of facts rather than the manner in which evidence is collected. Therefore, if evidence is relevant and genuine, it may still be admitted even though it was procured through unlawful or irregular methods.
However, such evidence must not violate constitutional safeguards, especially the protection against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Relevancy as the Test of Admissibility
Indian courts have consistently maintained that relevancy is the primary criterion for admissibility of evidence. Since the BSA does not expressly prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence, courts generally admit such material if it assists in determining the truth and its authenticity is established.
The illegality involved in obtaining the evidence may affect the weight or credibility attached to it, but ordinarily does not bar its admissibility.
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
In State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, the Supreme Court examined intercepted telephone conversations obtained allegedly in violation of the Telegraph Act and related rules.
The Court held that non-compliance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act or Rule 419A does not by itself make the intercepted conversations inadmissible in evidence. The Court pointed out that the Telegraph Act does not contain any specific rule excluding such evidence. Therefore, the intercepted telephonic communication remained admissible despite procedural irregularities.
Magraj Patodia v R.K. Birla
In Magraj Patodia v R.K. Birla, a witness who produced certain documents could not satisfactorily explain how he obtained them. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that a document procured through improper or illegal means does not become inadmissible if its relevance and genuineness are proved.
Thus, the focus remained on authenticity and relevance rather than the legality of procurement.
Bharati Tamang v Union of India
In Bharati Tamang v Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that relevancy is the true test of admissibility. Unless there is an express or implied constitutional or statutory prohibition, evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure cannot automatically be excluded.
The Court emphasized that Indian law does not generally follow the strict exclusionary rule adopted in some foreign jurisdictions.
Madhu v State of Karnataka
In Madhu v State of Karnataka, the Court held that evidence collected by improper means remains admissible if it is relevant and genuine. However, courts must scrutinize such evidence carefully and ensure that no prejudice has been caused to the accused or affected party.
Thus, the Court adopted a cautious but practical approach.
Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana
In Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana, video recordings of television broadcasts showing the conduct of certain legislators were relied upon in proceedings under the Tenth Schedule relating to disqualification.
The recordings were authenticated by television channels regarding their contents and origin. Since the concerned members failed to specifically challenge the genuineness of the recordings and merely made general denials, the Speaker was justified in relying upon them.
This case demonstrated judicial acceptance of electronic evidence even when questions were raised regarding its procurement.
Yashwant Sinha v CBI (Rafale Review Case)
In Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v CBI, review petitions concerning the Rafale deal were supported by documents published in The Hindu newspaper. The Attorney General argued that the documents had been illegally removed from the Ministry and therefore should not be relied upon.
The Supreme Court rejected this objection and accepted the review petitions. Justice K.M. Joseph observed that under both English and Indian common law, the manner in which evidence is obtained is generally not decisive for admissibility. What primarily matters is the relevance of the material.
The Court clarified that illegally procured evidence may still be considered by courts unless specifically barred by law.
Constitutional Limitation
Although illegally obtained evidence is generally admissible, courts cannot permit evidence gathered in violation of constitutional protections such as Article 20(3), which protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
Therefore, evidence obtained through coercion, compulsion, or forced self-incrimination may be excluded.
Conclusion
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the admissibility of evidence primarily depends upon its relevance and authenticity rather than the legality of the method by which it was obtained. Indian courts have repeatedly held that illegally or improperly collected evidence may still be admitted unless there is a specific constitutional or statutory prohibition. At the same time, courts remain cautious while evaluating such evidence and ensure that constitutional protections and principles of fairness are not violated.
0 Comments