How To Tackle Vulnerabilities Between Reforms: Moving From Risk To Reform In Navigating Hearsay Evidence Complexities
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 29
- 2 min read
Mayankraj Vijay Kumar Sharma, Symbiosis Law School
ABSTRACT
Hearsay evidence, understood as statements made out of court that are being offered to prove the veracity of their content, has a troubled position in legal systems everywhere. They achieve a balance of human truth-seeking against the backdrop of reliability concerns and procedural fairness. This paper examines the hearsay rule in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and through comparative analysis of other jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. The paper illustrates that hearsay evidence in India is generally excluded based primarily on Section 60 of the Act for the purpose of enabling the ability to test evidence through cross- examination, a bedrock of the Article 21 right to fair trial protections offered by the Indian Constitution. However, crucial exceptions exist: namely when it comes to dying declarations (s. 32) or statements that are part of the res gestae (s. 6), both justified based on necessity and reliability, as seen in important cases. The comparative analysis indicates a range of ways to strike a balance between these same principles, driven by the various constitutional and statutory frameworks, including the U.S. Confrontation Clause and the UK's Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Finally, the paper recognizes new challenges regulators face, particularly around the authentication of digital hearsay evidence. Possible options for addressing this are legislation reform for clarification purposes, improved judicial training, and more use of technology and international best practices to reform the evidence associated with hearsay more thoroughly in India. The goal should ultimately be to reform the Indian court system to better reflect the ever-changing global community and to protect the integrity of the judicial system by being open to substance and evidence while ensuring that hearsay evidence remains admissible in the judicial process.
