Relevancy and Admissibility of Evidence: Meaning, Difference and Landmark Case Laws under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Relevancy and admissibility are used interchangeably in ordinary speech and are frequently confused in argument, but the Adhiniyam keeps them apart and builds its structure on the separation. Part II asks whether a fact is connected with a fact in issue in a manner the statute recognises. Parts III and IV ask whether the law permits that fact to be received, and in what form. A fact may pass the first test and fail the second, and the consequences of confusing the two are practical rather than academic.

1. Relevancy

Section 2(1)(k), BSA

One fact is said to be 'relevant' to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts.

Section 3, BSA

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 hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Relevancy is founded on the probative connection between one fact and another, but the Adhiniyam does not leave that connection to be assessed at large. Sections 4 to 50 set out an exhaustive catalogue of the ways in which one fact may be connected with a fact in issue, and Section 3 bars proof of anything outside that catalogue. Relevancy under the statute is therefore logic filtered through legislative selection.

1.1 Logical and legal relevancy

	Logical relevancy	Legal relevancy
Basis	Ordinary reasoning and probability; a fact is logically relevant if its existence renders another fact more or less probable	Statutory recognition; a fact is legally relevant only if it falls within one of the heads in Sections 4 to 50
Scope	Wider	Narrower
Relationship	Every legally relevant fact is also logically relevant	Not every logically relevant fact is legally relevant
Example	That an accused is a person of bad character makes it marginally more probable that he committed the offence charged	Section 49 excludes evidence of the bad character of an accused except in the cases specified; the fact is therefore not legally relevant

The reasons for the narrowing are practical. Facts of marginal probative worth prolong trials, distract the tribunal, and in criminal cases carry a serious risk of prejudice. Stephen's stated purposes in framing the 1872 Act were to prevent laxity in the admission of evidence and to confine the enquiry to the matters actually in dispute, and the exhaustive relevancy scheme is the means by which both purposes are achieved.

2. Admissibility

The Adhiniyam does not define admissibility. It is the quality that permits relevant material to be received by the court, and it is regulated by the provisions in Parts III and IV governing the mode of proof and by the specific rules of exclusion. Admissibility answers two questions: whether any rule of law forbids reception of the fact, and whether the prescribed mode of proving it has been followed.

Source of the rule	Provisions	Effect
Rules of exclusion	Section 23 (confession to a police officer or in custody); Section 49 (previous bad character of an accused); Sections 127 to 137 (privilege)	Exclude relevant material on grounds of policy
Mode of proof — oral	Section 55	Oral evidence must in all cases be direct; hearsay is excluded
Mode of proof — documentary	Sections 56 to 60	Contents must be proved by primary evidence, secondary evidence being admissible only in the specified cases
Mode of proof — electronic	Sections 57, 61 and 63 and the Schedule	Electronic records are primary evidence in the circumstances stated in Section 57; where tendered as secondary evidence, the conditions and certificate in Section 63 apply
Exclusion by documentary evidence	Sections 94 to 103	Where the terms of a transaction have been reduced to writing, oral evidence of those terms is excluded
Judicial control	Section 141	The Judge decides questions of admissibility

Section 141, BSA — Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

(1) When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise.

The section corresponds to Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act. It places the determination of admissibility squarely on the Judge, and it makes relevancy the condition precedent to reception.

3. The Distinction

	Relevancy	Admissibility
Founded on	Logic and probative connection, as recognised by the statute	Law and policy — whether reception is permitted and in what form
Governed by	Part II, Sections 3 to 50	Parts III and IV, Sections 51 onwards
Question asked	Is this fact connected with a fact in issue in one of the ways the Adhiniyam recognises?	Even if so connected, does any rule exclude it, and has the prescribed mode of proof been followed?
Nature of the enquiry	Whether evidence of the fact may be given at all	Whether the evidence offered may be received in the form tendered
Judicial discretion	None; the heads are exhaustive, and a fact outside them is not relevant however probative	None in the sense of a general power to admit; the rules are prescriptive
Decided by	The Judge, on the statute	The Judge, under Section 141
Terminology	Sections 4 to 50 use the expression 'is relevant'	Sections 51 onwards use 'may be proved', 'shall be admissible', 'shall not be admitted'
Relationship	The wider concept	The narrower concept

3.1 The governing proposition

All admissible evidence is relevant, but not all relevant evidence is admissible. Relevancy is a condition precedent to admissibility; nothing irrelevant can be received. But relevancy does not by itself entitle a party to have the material received, because the rules of exclusion and the rules governing the mode of proof operate on facts that are already relevant.

📖 Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517

Held: The expressions 'relevancy' and 'admissibility' are often used as synonyms, but their legal implications are distinct and different. More often than not, facts which are relevant may not be admissible. Rules of procedure and of evidence are handmaids of justice, and where the substance of the matter is clear a court should not permit an evidentiary irregularity which does not go to the root of the matter and causes no prejudice to defeat the ends of justice.

Ratio: The leading Indian authority on the distinction, and the standard citation for the proposition that relevancy and admissibility are not interchangeable.

3.2 Illustrations of the proposition

Material	Relevant?	Admissible?	Reason
A confession made by an accused to a police officer	Yes — it is an admission of guilt and bears directly on a fact in issue	No	Section 23(1) excludes it on grounds of policy, because of the risk of custodial coercion
A statement made by a wife to her husband during the marriage	Yes, where it bears on a fact in issue	No, save in the excepted cases	Section 128 protects communications during marriage
Evidence of the previous conviction of an accused for an unrelated offence	Logically, marginally	No	Section 49 excludes evidence of the bad character of an accused except in the cases specified
A photocopy of a written agreement, the original being available and in the hands of the party tendering the copy	Yes — the terms are in issue	No	Sections 56 and 59 require proof of contents by primary evidence; Section 60 does not permit secondary evidence in these circumstances
A printout of an e-mail tendered without the certificate under Section 63(4), the original device not being produced	Yes	No	Section 63 read with the Schedule; Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao
A communication between an advocate and his client relating to the case	Yes	No	Section 132 protects professional communications
An oral account by a witness of what a third person told him, tendered to prove the truth of what was said	Yes, if the underlying fact is relevant	No	Section 55 requires oral evidence to be direct

4. Admissibility of Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence

A question that arises frequently in practice is whether evidence that is relevant becomes inadmissible because it was obtained unlawfully. Indian law, following the English position and departing from the American exclusionary rule, answers that the manner of obtaining evidence does not ordinarily affect its admissibility.

📖 Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345

Facts: Documents and materials were seized in the course of a search alleged to have been conducted in breach of the statutory provisions governing search and seizure, and it was contended that they could not be used in assessment proceedings.

Held: A Constitution Bench held that the test of admissibility of evidence is its relevancy. Unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or in a statute, evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out. The court is not concerned with the manner in which relevant material came to be produced before it.

Ratio: The foundational Indian authority on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Relevancy, and not the propriety of the means of collection, is the test.

📖 R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471

Facts: A tape recording of a telephone conversation was obtained by attaching a recording device with the assistance of one of the participants, and was relied upon in a prosecution for corruption.

Held: A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible. The Court laid down that the voice must be identified, the accuracy of the recording must be established and the possibility of erasure or alteration excluded, and the recording must be kept in safe custody. The fact that the evidence was procured by an eavesdropping device did not render it inadmissible, though the Court disapproved of the method.

Ratio: Relevant evidence remains admissible notwithstanding the impropriety of the means by which it was obtained, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of authenticity.

📖 Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591

Held: Even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. The court may, however, take the manner of collection into account when assessing the weight to be attached to the material.

Ratio: Illegality in collection goes to weight and to the conduct of the party, not to admissibility.

4.1 The qualification — statutory prohibition

The rule in Pooran Mal is expressly subject to an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or in a statute. Where a special enactment makes compliance with a safeguard a condition of the validity of the recovery itself, non-compliance is not a mere irregularity in collection and the material cannot be relied upon.

📖 State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172

Held: A Constitution Bench held that the requirement under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, that a person about to be searched be informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, is mandatory. A recovery effected in breach of that requirement cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction under the Act, though it does not invalidate the investigation altogether.

Ratio: Where a statute makes a safeguard a condition of a valid search, evidence obtained in breach of it is not saved by the general rule that relevancy is the test of admissibility.

⚠ How the two lines of authority fit together

Pooran Mal states the general rule: relevancy is the test, and illegality in collection does not exclude. Baldev Singh states the exception: where the legislature has made compliance a condition of the validity of the recovery, the general rule yields to the specific statutory command. The distinction is between a procedural impropriety in obtaining material that exists independently, and a statutory prohibition that attaches to the use of the material itself.

5. Admissibility and Weight

A third concept must be kept separate from both. Admissibility is a question of law for the Judge; the weight or probative value of admitted evidence is a question of fact, assessed at the conclusion of the trial.

	Admissibility	Weight
Nature	A question of law	A question of fact
Decided	When the evidence is tendered	When the case is decided
Decided by	The Judge, under Section 141	The tribunal of fact, on the whole of the material
Governed by	The rules of exclusion and the rules on mode of proof	Judicial assessment; Section 139 provides that no particular number of witnesses is required for the proof of any fact
Consequence of error	May be corrected under Section 169, subject to the conditions there stated	Corrected on appeal on the merits

The distinction explains a result that is otherwise puzzling. Evidence may be admitted and then given no weight at all. The testimony of a witness who is admitted to be competent under Section 124 is admissible, but the court may decline to act upon it. Conversely, evidence excluded as inadmissible is not weighed at all, however persuasive it might have been.

6. Consequences of a Wrong Decision on Admissibility

Section 169, BSA — Of improper admission and rejection of evidence

The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it appears to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.

Section 169 corresponds to Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act, and it is the provision that prevents the law of evidence from becoming a source of technical reversals. The test is one of materiality. Where inadmissible evidence was admitted, the appellate court asks whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to justify the decision. Where admissible evidence was rejected, it asks whether that evidence, if received, ought to have varied the decision. Only if the answer to the applicable question is against the finding does the error become a ground for interference.

6.1 Practical consequences of the distinction

Objection must be taken at the right time. An objection to the mode of proof of a document, such as the absence of a certificate or the tendering of a copy in place of the original, must ordinarily be taken when the document is tendered, so that the defect may be cured. An objection to the admissibility of the document itself, on the ground that it is barred by law, may be taken at any stage, since no amount of consent can make inadmissible material admissible.
Consent cannot confer admissibility. Parties cannot by agreement authorise the court to act on material that the statute excludes, though they may waive an objection to the manner in which admissible material is proved.
A finding cannot rest on inadmissible material. Where a conclusion is founded wholly on evidence that ought not to have been received, Section 169 does not save it, because the condition that there was sufficient other evidence is not satisfied.

7. The Electronic Evidence Illustration

The clearest modern illustration of the distinction is the treatment of electronic records. Such a record is relevant whenever its contents bear on a fact in issue; the whole of the litigation on Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and now on Section 63 of the Adhiniyam, has concerned admissibility and not relevancy.

📖 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473

Held: Electronic records constitute a special class of evidence. Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act together formed a complete code, and compliance with Section 65B(4) was mandatory for the admission of secondary electronic evidence. The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant was applied. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 was overruled to that extent.

Application: The recordings in question were plainly relevant. They were held inadmissible for want of compliance with the prescribed mode of proof.

📖 Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1

Held: A three-Judge Bench restored and clarified Anvar P.V. The certificate is mandatory where secondary electronic evidence is relied upon, but is not required where the original device is itself produced by its owner. Where a party is unable to obtain the certificate because the device is in the control of another, the court may compel its production.

Application: The decision draws the line at the mode of proof. Relevancy is assumed throughout; the question is the form in which the relevant record must be brought before the court.

📖 Pune Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1297 (decided 22 May 2026)

Held: A three-Judge Bench (Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 63(4) of the Adhiniyam and the Schedule. The requirements of hash-value disclosure in Part A and of an expert declaration in Part B bear a rational nexus with the object of preserving the authenticity and integrity of electronic records. Reading Sections 39(1) and 39(2) harmoniously, the Court held that the expert who signs Part B is not confined to an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Application: A challenge directed entirely at the conditions of admissibility, the relevancy of the records concerned never being in question.

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Fact, Fact in Issue and Relevant Fact	The categories on which the relevancy enquiry operates
Important Definitions under Section 2, BSA	The definition of 'relevant' in Section 2(1)(k) and of 'proved' in Section 2(1)(j)
Nature and Meaning of Evidence	The classification of evidence and the place of relevancy within it
Sections 4 to 50, BSA	The heads of relevancy in full
Sections 55 to 63 and the Schedule, BSA	Mode of proof of oral, documentary and electronic evidence
Section 23, BSA	Confessions to a police officer — the standard illustration of relevant but inadmissible material
Sections 127 to 137, BSA	Privilege, a further category of relevant but inadmissible material
Section 141, BSA	The Judge's power to decide questions of admissibility
Section 169, BSA	Effect of the improper admission or rejection of evidence