Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act

Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty – Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act

Scope and Applicability Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility and evidentiary value of entries made in public records, including those maintained in electronic form. It provides that entries in public records, made by a public servant in the discharge of their official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire.

Rationale – Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act

The admissibility of entries in public records rests on the presumption that public officials perform their duties correctly and that the entries made by them are accurate and reliable. This presumption is based on the following considerations:

Official Duty: Public servants are entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining accurate records as part of their official duties.
Personal Liability: Public servants can be held personally liable for any errors or irregularities in the records they maintain.
Public Scrutiny: Public records are subject to public scrutiny and can be challenged if found to be inaccurate or unreliable.
Contemporaneous Nature: Entries in public records are typically made contemporaneously with the events they reflect, enhancing their reliability as evidence.

Admissibility of Electronic Records = Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act

The 2000 amendment to the Indian Evidence Act specifically recognizes the admissibility of entries in public records maintained in electronic form. This recognition aligns with the increasing prevalence of electronic record-keeping in modern governance and administration.

Evidentiary Value of Entries – Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act

While entries in public records are considered relevant evidence, they are not conclusive proof of any fact. Their evidentiary value depends on various factors, including:

Official Authority: The official authority of the person who made the entry is crucial in determining its evidentiary weight.
Reliability of Custodians: The credibility of the persons responsible for maintaining the public records can influence the court’s assessment of their evidentiary value.
Regularity of Maintenance: The regularity and consistency with which the public records have been maintained is also considered.
Absence of Defects or Irregularities: The presence of any defects or irregularities in the public records can diminish their evidentiary value.
Corroborating Evidence: The availability of corroborating evidence, such as witness testimony or other supporting documents, can strengthen the evidentiary value of entries in public records.

Exceptions to Admissibility Despite the general admissibility of entries in public records, there are certain exceptions:

Irregular Entries: Entries made in violation of law or by unauthorized persons are not admissible.
Confidential Information: Entries containing confidential or privileged information may not be admissible.
Opinion or Belief: Entries expressing personal opinions or beliefs are not admissible as evidence of facts.
Statements Against Interest: Entries made by a person against their own interest may be admissible, but their weight is subject to scrutiny.

Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act plays a significant role in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving government actions, administrative decisions, and public records. It recognizes the relevance and admissibility of entries in public records, while also acknowledging their limitations. The evidentiary value of such entries is determined based on various factors, including their official authority, reliability, regularity, and consistency.

Here are some case laws on Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act:

Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty

Case Law 1: Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (1954 AIR 755)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that an entry in a police register, made by a police officer in the discharge of his official duty, is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed that the presumption of regularity applies to entries in public records, including police registers, and such entries are considered reliable evidence until proved otherwise.

Case Law 2: Union of India v. J.M.A. Industries (1987 AIR 833)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an entry in an assessment register, made by a revenue officer in the discharge of his official duty, is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court reiterated the presumption of regularity attached to entries in public records and emphasized the importance of such records in establishing facts relevant to legal proceedings.

Case Law 3: State of Maharashtra v. Ramchandra Ganpatrao (1995 (4) SCC 683)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an entry in a school register, made by a teacher in the discharge of his official duty, is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court noted that school registers are maintained to ensure proper administration of the school and that entries made by teachers in these registers are considered reliable evidence of the facts recorded therein.

Case Law 4: State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Dayal (1998 AIR SC 1320)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an entry in a jail register, made by a jail official in the discharge of his official duty, is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized the importance of jail registers in maintaining proper records of prisoners and that entries made by jail officials in these registers are considered reliable evidence of the facts recorded therein.

Case Law 5: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shailesh Chandra Sharma (2011 AIR SC 1702)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an entry in a hospital register, made by a doctor or other medical staff in the discharge of their official duties, is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed that hospital registers are maintained to ensure proper patient care and that entries made by medical personnel in these registers are considered reliable evidence of the facts recorded therein.

These case laws demonstrate the application of Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act in various contexts and highlight the importance of entries in public records as evidence in legal proceedings. The presumption of regularity attached to such entries and their contemporaneous nature make them valuable sources of information for courts to consider when determining the facts of a case.