Epistemic Injustice In Evidentiary Jurisprudence: A Critical Analysis Of Credibility Evaluation And Hermeneutical Marginalization In Trial Courts
Sagarika K.N., School of Law, Karnataka State Law University (KSLU)
ABSTRACT
Evidentiary jurisprudence is structurally predicated on the objective discovery of truth and the rational assessment of proof. However, the legal architecture governing testimony, witness credibility, and fact-finding often operates as a site of profound epistemic injustice. Drawing upon Miranda Fricker’s conceptual framework of epistemic injustice specifically testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice this research paper critically investigates how systemic identity prejudices subtly skew judicial evaluations of witness credibility and legal narrative construction. Through an analysis of statutory rules of evidence, judicial discretion in evaluating oral testimony, and structural barriers faced by marginalized litigants, this paper demonstrates that credibility is not an purely neutral empirical measure, but a socially constructed commodity vulnerable to systemic bias. The paper proposes an epistemically unjust-aware framework for reform in evidentiary standards and judicial training.
Keywords: Epistemic Injustice, Testimonial Injustice, Hermeneutical Marginalization, Evidentiary Jurisprudence, Credibility Assessment, Fact- Finding, Indian Evidence Act / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
