Relevancy vs. Admissibility (Sec. 3): Logic of What Makes a Fact ‘Relevant' and the Court's Power to Allow Evidence Only on ‘Facts in Issue'

This article is written by Pritesh Bahadur, Graphic Era Hill University, B.A LLB (Hons.), 5th Year during his internship at LeDroit India.

Scope of Article

• Introduction: The chaotic nature of raw facts vs. the filtered reality of the courtroom.
• Decoding BSA Section 3: The statutory gatekeeper of evidence.
• Definitions: Breaking down ‘Fact’, ‘Fact in Issue’, and ‘Relevant Fact’ with real-world analogies.
• The Logic of Relevancy: Understanding the nexus (Sections 4-50 BSA).
•  Relevancy vs. Admissibility: A comparative analysis (The Logical vs. The Legal).
•  Judicial Discretion: The Super-Power of the Judge under Section 168 BSA (formerly Sec 165 IEA).
• Landmark & Recent Case Law: From Ram Bihari Yadav to the 2023 Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta.
• The Digital Shift: Electronic evidence admissibility under the new BSA regime.

Keywords: Relevancy, Admissibility, Facts in Issue, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Section 168, Judicial Discretion, Electronic Evidence.

ABSTRACT

Imagine a funnel. Into the wide top, you pour every rumor, suspicion, and logical connection regarding a crime. But the narrow bottom drops only what the judge or adjudicator sees. This filter is the key difference between Relevancy and Admissibility. With the transition from the Indian Evidence Act,1872 to the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the rules of this funnel have undergone codification with modern precision, yet the core logic remains a stumbling block even for the seasoned professionals.

This article aims to dissect Section 3 of the BSA, exploring why a fact can be logically “relevant” (connected to a crime) but legally “inadmissible” (barred by policy). We analyse the distinct categories of “Facts in Issue” versus “Relevant Facts”, the immense inquisitional powers of the Judge under Section 168, and how the Supreme Court rulings like Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) are reshaping the landscape of circumstantial evidence. Finally, we touch upon the BSA’s new stance on digital records, arguably the biggest leap in admissibility standards in a century.

Introduction: The Courtroom is Not a Gossip Parlor

Walk into Sessions Court in India during a heated cross-examination, and you can feel the tension in the courtroom. A witness wants to say, “I heard from my neighbour that the accused hated the victim!” It makes sense, doesn’t it? If the accused harboured hatred for the victim, he will be considered sufficiently likely to kill him. It’s logical. It’s pertinent. It connects.

But the judge raises his hand declaring: “Hearsay. Inadmissible.” 

This is the daily friction of legal practice. We often assume that anything that helps uncover the truth should be shown to the court. But the law firmly disagrees. The law knows that human logic is fragile and fallible and that juries (or judges) can be prejudiced by “relevant” but unreliable bluffs or data. This brings us to the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BSA). While it replaces the colonial Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the IEA), it retains the golden rule of exclusion. It doesn’t ask “Is this true?”, It asks “Is this allowed?” 

Section 3 of the BSA, 2023 can be seen as the gatekeeper. It attempts to guard judicial focus, ensuring we don’t wander off into an endless forest of logical connections.

Section 3 BSA: The Statutory Straitjacket 

Let’s take a look at the text. Section 3 of the BSA (corresponding to the old Section 5 of the IEA) lays down the commandment:

“Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.”

Notice the phrase “and of no others.” That’s the lock. You cannot bring in evidence just because it feels important. It must fit in one of the two pre-requisites:

• It is the fight itself (Fact in Issue).
• It is logically connected to the fight in a way the Act has given recognition (Relevant Fact).

If it doesn’t match these requirements, it’s out. Period.

Breaking down the Trinity: Facts, Issues and Relevancy

To navigate Section 3, we have to look at the definitions in Section 2. This is where students usually gloss over the text, but practitioners know the devil is in details. 

1. Fact (Section 2(1)(e))

The BSA reminds us that a “fact” isn’t just a physical object:

• Physical Facts: The gun, the bloodstain, the CCTV footage or any other things capable of being perceived by senses.
• Psychological Facts: Intention, fraud, good faith, or the reputation someone holds. (Any mental condition of which the person is conscious has knowledge of)

2. Fact in Issue (Section 2(1)(f))

Think of this as the “Bone of Contention.” These are the facts that one party asserts and the other denies. In a murder trial (Section 302 IPC/103 BNS), the facts in issue are usually:

• Did A cause B’s death?
• Did A intend to cause death?
• Did A act in self defence?

If the prosecution declares “A killed B” and A says “I was in Goa,” then the presence of A at or near the crime scene becomes a Fact in Issue.

3. Relevant Fact

These are the supporting actors. They aren’t the crime itself but they are invaluable in getting a clear picture of the dynamics that led to the occurrence of the crime. A fact is relevant if it is connected to the Fact in Issue in any of the ways mentioned in Sections 4 to 50 of the BSA. Examples include:

• Motive: A bought poison yesterday (Relevant under Sec 6).
• Conduct: A ran away when the police arrived (Relevant under Sec 6).
• Alibi: A was in hospital 500km away from the scene of crime (Relevant under Sec 9).

The Logic of Relevancy: The Nexus

Why are Sections 4 to 50 there? They represent the logical nexus. The law presumes that human events are interconnected. A crime doesn’t just happen out of thin air; it has a preparation (motive), an execution (res gestae), and an aftermath or commission of the crime (conduct). 

Take the Doctrine of Res Gestae (Section 4 BSA). If a woman shouts or screams “He’s killing me!” while running out of a house, that scream is considered as part of the “same transaction” as the murder. It’s relevant not because she is testifying, but because the event spoke through her. However, logic isn’t enough. A polygraph test is logically relevant since it can be utilized to indicate deception, but legally, courts have been skeptical about its admissibility (violating Art. 20(3) of the Constitution). This brings us to the great divide.

Relevancy vs. Admissibility: The Legal Line That Trips Up Even the Experts

Even experienced lawyers sometimes get tripped up by the difference between relevancy and admissibility. I once heard a senior lawyer sum it up perfectly: “Relevancy is the work of the head; admissibility is the work of the code.” That phrase sticks for a reason since it goes straight into the heart of evidence law.

So, what’s the real distinction? Let’s break it down, clear and simple.

What Sets Them Apart?

Relevancy is about connection. Does this piece of evidence actually matter to your case? Does it push a fact in any direction? If so, it’s relevant.

Admissibility is a little more strict. Even if something is relevant, the law still has the final say. The judge decides: does the code allow this evidence in, or is it kept out? If something logically fits within the context, it is relevant. However, even if it is relevant, that doesn’t mean it will be admitted since legal rules can still exclude it. 

Example 

Imagine a husband and wife talking about a certain crime. That conversation is obviously relevant since it relates to the facts. But, under the Privileged Communication rules (Sections 126-132 BSA), it cannot be used as evidence unless a particular exception applies.

Nature

Relevancy concerns how facts are linked. Admissibility concerns the process, i.e. what is actually acceptable as evidence.

The Judge’s Superpower: Section 168 BSA

Now, fast forward to the trial. The lawyers are fighting over admissibility. The judge isn’t just a referee, under the BSA, they are an investigator.

Section 168 (formerly Sec. 165 IEA) is arguably the most powerful section in the entire Act. It empowers the judge to ask any question, in any form, at any time, to any witness or party, about any fact (relevant or irrelevant).

Why? To discover the truth.

The judge can look at a document that is technically inadmissible (logic) to find out some clues which lead to admissible evidence (law). However, there is a catch, the judgement itself must be based only on relevant and duly proved facts. The judge can fish for truth anywhere, but they can only cook the meal with admissible ingredients.

Landmark Judicial Precedents

To get a better understanding of how this plays out in the Supreme Court, we have to look at the evolution of case law. 

1. The Classic Distinction: Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998)

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the confusion between the two concepts. The Court held that “Relevancy and Admissibility are synonymous to some extent but their legal implications are of different kinds.” The Court emphasized that a document might be relevant (e.g., a public record), but if it’s not properly proved (admissibility criterion), it cannot be read in evidence. 

2. The “When to Object” Rule: R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami (2003)

This may be considered a Bible for trial lawyers. In this case, the Supreme Court distinguishes between two types of objections: 

• Objection to Admissibility (Substantive): e.g., “This document is hearsay.” This can be raised at any stage, even in appeal. 
• Objection to Model of Proof (Procedural): e.g., “You brought a photocopy instead of the original document.” This must be raised when the document is rendered. If you stay silent then, you waive your right to object at a later stage.

3. The Modern Era: Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi) (2023)

A Constitution Bench judgement that shook the corridors of corruption laws. The issue: Can a public servant be convicted of bribery if the complainant dies or turns hostile (no direct oral evidence)?

The Court held that circumstantial evidence (Relevant Facts) can be a substitute for direct evidence. Even if the “Fact in Issue” (Demand of bribe) isn’t proved by direct testimony, a chain of “Relevant Facts” (recovery of money, conduct) can prove it inferentially. This highlights that relevancy (logic) can bridge the gap when admissibility if direct evidence fails 

Doctrines and BSA 2023 Update

The BSA has introduced subtle but massive shifts, particularly regarding electronic records. 

• The “Probative Value” Test

If Admissibility is the gate, Probative Value is the weight. Once evidence is admitted under Section 3, the judge decides its weightage. 

Under BSA, the definition of “Document” now explicitly includes electronic and digital records (Section 2(1)(d)).

Electronic Evidence: The New Paradigm 

Under the old IEA, we had the clumsy Section 65B certificate regime. In BSA, Section 61 and Section 63 governs this:

• Section 61: “Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of electronic records…”
• Section 63: Replaces 65B. It simplifies the certification process, treating electronic records more like primary evidence that they are stored in the ordinary course of business. This is a game-changer. Before BSA, relevant emails were often thrown out (inadmissible) due to technical certificate errors. The BSA ensures proper procedural safeguards are in place, bringing “Legal Admissibility” closer to “Logical Relevancy.” 

Conclusion: The Delicate Balance

So, does relevancy guarantee admissibility? Absolutely not. And that is a good thing. Allow me to explain, if the Courts admitted everything that was merely “relevant,” trials would last decades, and verdicts would be based on gossip rather than actual proof. Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, maintains the necessary discipline. It forces the lawyer to pause and ask: “I know this fact connects to the crime, but does the law trust it?” That is the primary question here.

For law students and interns, the takeaway is simple: Do not confuse the story with the evidence. The story is built on relevancy; the judgement however, is built on admissibility. As the BSA comes into full force, mastering Section 3, and the Judge’s override under Section 168, shall remain the defining skill of the next generation of litigants.