Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2012) - Meaning of 'Evidence' under IEA

• JUDGEMENT  SUMMARY:  Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 8^th November 2012
• JUDGES:  B.S. Chauhan,  Jagdish Singh Khehar
• PARTIES: Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (Appellant) State of Maharashtra (Respondent)

SUBJECT

The following judgement deals with section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is the interpretation clause and lays down the meaning of the expression “evidence”. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court of India was whether the affidavit of the respondent which was not cross examined could be considered an evidence as per the meaning of the term under section 3 of the Indian Evidence ACT, 1872.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The Supreme Court of India in the present case deals with an appeal against the judgement of the High Court of Bombay challenging the caste certificate of the appellant.
2. A caste certificate was issued in favour of the appellant which stated that he belonged to Bhil Tadvi tribe which is a scheduled tribe which was verified by the scrutiny committee on the basis of which the appellant was appointed at the position of senior clerk.
3. The respondent challenged the validity of the certificate after 9 years and contended that the appellant does not belong to bhil tadvi tribe as he professes Islam. The High Court of Bombay directed a committee to decide the said matter.
4. The appellant in his appeal against the judgement of the High Court contended that the respondent does not have locus standi to challenge the certificate as he does not belong to bhil tadvi tribe. Also, the appellant despite his application for cross-examination of witnesses was denied the opportunity to do so resulting in the miscarriage of justice. Hence, the scrutiny committee failed to ensure natural justice.
5. The respondent in their defence contended that as he has espoused cause of real persons who have been deprived of their of their rights for the post occupied by the appellant, he can file case against the appellant without locus standi. In their further contention, the respondent stated that they have filed affidavits of relevant persons before scrutiny committee to prove their allegations. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Constitution Of India

• Article 226(1)- Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

Indian Evidence Act

Section 3- "Evidence" – "Evidence" means and includes

(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;

(2) [all document including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court], such statements are called documentary evidence;

• Section 114-Court may presume existence of certain facts. —The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

ISSUES

The following are the major issues framed by the court-

• Whether a third person, having no concern to the case can challenge order issued by a competent authority?
• Whether the right to cross-examine the witnesses part of natural justice?
• Whether “affidavit” comes under the meaning of the expression evidence in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. Locus standi demonstrates the capacity of a party to bring a legal action. That means only the person whose legal rights have been violated can bring a suit. But that does not imply that the party who does not have the means to approach the court cannot seek remedy for the legal injuries caused to them. In the present case, the appellant argued that the plaintiff does not have locus standi to challenge the caste certificate issued to him (appellant). In view of the following argument the court held that in ordinary circumstances, a third party not having any concern with the case cannot claim to have locus standi. The court quoted the decision held in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District collector, Raigadh, as a legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual.
2. In defence of the argument made by appellant, the respondent stated that the respondent is a public spirited person and has challenged the caste certificate on behalf of the persons whose right has been infringed. In view of this argument the court opined that in the cases where the aggrieved party could not approach the court, a person who does not have any personal interest in the matter can approach the court. Quoting the judgement of Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P., the court stated that the exercise of writ jurisdiction at instances of third party can only be done when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.
3. The second argument made by the appellant is that denial of the opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses failed to ensure natural justice. In view of this argument the court quoting the judgement in New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia stated the witness who intends to prove the said fact has the right to cross-examine the witness. This may not be provided by under the statute, but it being a part of the principle of natural justice should be held to be indefeasible right. Not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice.
4. The last question before the Court was whether the affidavit filed by the respondent is valid evidence or not? To answer this question the Court stated that filing of an affidavit of one’s own statement in one’s own favour cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence in any Court or Tribunal. Therefore, affidavits are not included within the purview of the definition of “evidence” under section 3 0f Indian Evidence Act. It can be used as evidence only if the Court passes an order to do so. In Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. N.I.N.I.H Ltd the Supreme court held that it is generally unsatisfactory to record a finding involving grave consequences with respect to a person, on the basis of affidavits and documents alone, without asking that person to submit to cross-examination.

CONCLUSION

The court in this case has been consistent with reasoning in the previous judgements. The court made it clear that the rights mentioned under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by the aggrieved party except for the writs of habeas corpus and quo warranto. It further described that the expression “aggrieved person” varies in different circumstances and cannot be confined in a definition. Though the court does not allow any third party having no concerns with the case to meddle with the proceedings, it, at the same time allow persons unable to approach the court due to poverty, illiteracy, ignorance or articulation to approach the court through a stranger to the case having no interest in it to ensure justice. Also, the court regarded the right to cross-examination as part and parcel of principle of natural justice. A party to the case must be given the opportunity to examine the evidences he relies upon. The court further held that affidavit does not come under the purview of the evidence under section 3 of Indian Evidence Act unless an order is passed by the ciurt for the same. This decision by the court is similar to the previous judgements regarding affidavit as evidence and the court seems to be right in doing so because the very purpose producing a document before a Court is to establish facts, and if the genuineness of those documents could not be established it cannot be regarded as proper evidence. So to consider an affidavit as valid evidence the writer should be produced before the court to verify it.