This is Part 1; please refer to Part 2 for additional context.
Introduction
Admissions and confessions are two kinds of statements that help courts reach the truth. These statements are important because they come from a person who has a direct connection to the case. If someone admits something that goes against their own interest, it is likely to be true. That is why the law allows such statements to be used as evidence.
Sections 15 to 21 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA 2023), define what admissions are, who can make them, how they can be proved, and when they are relevant. These rules apply to both civil and criminal cases.
SECTION 15 – Admission Defined
Section 15 of the BSA defines an admission as a statement, either oral, written (documentary) , or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact made by any person or persons herein mentioned. The key condition is that the person making the statement must fall within the categories mentioned in Sections 16 to 20 of the Act.
This section establishes the basic framework for understanding admissions in law. A statement becomes an admission when:
- It is related to a fact in issue or a relevant fact under the BSA.
- It is made in a form legally recognized oral, written, or electronic.
- It is made by a person whose statement the law recognizes as relevant under subsequent sections.
The importance of this section lies in the idea that when someone voluntarily states something that goes against their own interest, especially in a legal context, the chances of that statement being true are high. For this reason, such admissions are allowed to be used in court, even if they would not be allowed under the ordinary rule against hearsay.
Judicial interpretations stress that an admission does not need to be a direct acknowledgment of guilt or liability. Even indirect statements implying a relevant fact can qualify. For example, if in a civil suit for recovery of money, a person says, "I know I owe him something," it is an admission even though it is vague. The courts will examine such statements along with other evidence to determine their weight.
Furthermore, statements made in digital formats like WhatsApp messages, emails, and SMS can qualify as admissions if they meet the criteria of being made voluntarily and by the right person. Courts are now regularly dealing with such forms of communication, and the law acknowledges electronic records.
The evidentiary value of admissions is high but not absolute. They are not conclusive proof, meaning the person who made the statement can explain or contradict it in court. However, once made, the burden of disproving the admission falls on the party who made it. Therefore, Section 15 sets a very wide but logically sound standard for what qualifies as an admission in law.
Relevant Case Law: In the case of Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi (AIR 1966 SC 405), the Supreme Court observed that admissions, if clearly and unequivocally made, are the best evidence against the party making them, unless they are shown to be untrue or made under a mistaken belief. The Court emphasized that such statements must be taken as true unless successfully rebutted.
SECTION 16 – Admissions by Party to Proceeding or His Agent
Bare Act Provision:
Section 16 states that statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent authorized by such party, are admissions. It also includes statements made by persons suing or being sued in a representative character, provided they were made while they held that character.
(ii) (a) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the
proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested; or
(b) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit,
Detailed Explanation:
Section 16 lays down the principle that admissions made by a party to the case or by someone authorized to act on their behalf are relevant and can be used as evidence. This applies to both plaintiffs and defendants, whether the proceeding is civil or criminal.
The section includes:
- Statements by parties themselves
- Statements by authorized agents
- Statements by persons suing or being sued in a representative character (such as trustees, executors, company directors)
- The statements must be made during the existence of that authority or representative character
This section reflects a basic principle of agency — if someone is legally allowed to speak or act on your behalf, their statements bind you in legal proceedings.
Practical Implications:
- Admissions made by parties themselves carry strong evidentiary value. They directly affect the case because the party is acknowledging a fact that works against them.
- Agents must be authorized. The authorization can be express (e.g., power of attorney) or implied from the nature of the relationship (e.g., an employee making statements within the course of employment).
- The law is careful to ensure that unauthorized statements are not treated as admissions. If a person makes a statement after their legal connection ends, that statement is not admissible under this section.
Illustrations:
- If the director of a company admits in an email that the company breached a contract, and he had authority to handle such matters, the statement is binding on the company.
- A legal guardian in a custody case admits in a court document that the minor was not in their care. That becomes an admission.
Electronic Admissions:
As per the BSA, statements can be in oral, documentary, or electronic form. Therefore, WhatsApp chats, emails, and even recorded phone calls can be valid admissions under this section, provided the identity and authority of the person making the statement is verified.
Important Clarifications from Case Law and Legal Texts:
- The admission must be made voluntarily.
- It must be within the scope of the agent’s authority.
- Statements made before or after the agency or representative relationship may not be valid under this section.
- In representative suits (e.g., under Order I Rule 8 CPC), admissions by one person suing on behalf of others must be carefully examined to determine whether they bind all.
Case Law Example:
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
The Supreme Court held that admissions made by government officers who were duly authorized to manage certain departments could be used against the state in disputes arising from those departments. However, statements made by officers outside their duties or after retirement do not bind the state.
Conclusion:
Section 16 ensures that the legal system can rely on the statements of parties and their agents, provided there is a clear connection, legal authority, and the statement is relevant. It safeguards against misuse by limiting admissibility to statements made during the course of representation or employment.
SECTION 17 – Admissions by Persons Whose Position Must Be Proved as Against Party to Suit
Bare Act Provision:
Section 17 states that admissions made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove in a suit as against any party to the suit are relevant, if such admissions are made during the time when the person making them held that position or was subject to that liability.
Detailed Explanation:
Section 17 widens the scope of admissible admissions to include third parties whose legal relationship with a party to the case is part of the issue to be proved. This applies even when the person making the statement is not a party to the case, as long as their role or liability affects the outcome.
Illustration:
A undertakes to collect rents for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
For example:
- In a case where a plaintiff claims a person is the servant or employee of the defendant, a statement made by that servant admitting some action becomes relevant.
- Similarly, in a suit involving principal-agent relationships, the agent’s statements can be used once the agency is proved.
This section emphasizes that the legal relationship between the declarant and the party must be established first, and the admission must be made during the period of that relationship or liability.
When This Section Applies:
- Employment relationships: Statements by employees that impact their employer's liability.
- Partnerships: Statements made by a partner during the time of being a partner.
- Principal-agent cases: Where the agent’s position is under scrutiny.
- Joint ventures and co-ownership: Admissions by one party that impact the liability or rights of another.
Illustration:
Suppose a driver employed by a transport company admits, “I fell asleep while driving, which caused the accident.” If the driver's employment is proven, that admission becomes relevant against the company under this section.
But if the driver was not employed at the time or the employment is not proven, the statement cannot be used under this section.
Essentials for Admissibility:
- The person making the admission must not be a stranger to the legal issue.
- The admission must relate directly to their role or liability.
- The relationship must exist at the time the statement was made.
- The statement must be connected to the fact in issue in the current proceedings.
This provision acts as a bridge between the rules of relevancy and vicarious liability. Courts accept that in many legal situations, the acts and words of related third parties—especially those whose status or liability is tied to the matter—can affect the outcome.
Legal Understanding from Judicial Interpretation:
Courts have clarified that admissions under this section are not automatic. The court must first prove the relationship or status of the person making the statement before using the statement as an admission. For example, in partnership or employment disputes, the status must be established before considering the statement's relevance.
Statements made after the termination of the legal relationship (e.g., post-employment or post-partnership) are generally not admissible under this section, because the legal tie that gave the person authority no longer exists.
Case Law Example:
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. v. State of Haryana (1971)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that statements made by a company’s manager, who was actively involved in managing operations, were relevant against the company because his position and responsibilities were well established. The court reiterated that such admissions are admissible only if the relationship or position is active and proven.
Conclusion:
Section 17 ensures that courts can consider relevant statements made by persons whose connection to the parties affects the outcome. However, it builds in safeguards: the relationship must exist at the time, and the court must be satisfied that the connection is legally valid.
This section plays an important role in complex cases involving businesses, firms, partnerships, and structured hierarchies of liability.
SECTION 18 – Admissions by Persons Expressly Referred to by Party to the Suit
Bare Act Provision:
Section 18 provides that when a party to a suit refers another person to obtain information, or relies on the statements of another person as being accurate or authoritative, the statements made by that referred person are relevant as admissions against the party who made the referral.
Detailed Explanation:
Section 18 is based on a principle of implied acceptance or adoption. When a party refers to a third person as the one who has knowledge or authority over a matter in question, they are taken to have endorsed or trusted their statement. As a result, any statement made by that person becomes binding or relevant as an admission against the referring party.
The logic here is simple: If you direct someone to speak to X because X knows the facts, then you are indirectly accepting what X might say. You cannot later disown that person’s statement just because it turns out to be unfavorable.
Scope and Application:
This section has wide application in both civil and criminal cases. It is especially important in:
- Commercial cases where parties refer clients to accountants, managers, or other departments.
- Family and inheritance disputes where a person refers to relatives or agents for details.
- Criminal trials where the accused refers the police or court to another person who may give a statement.
The section does not require that the referred person be a party to the suit. What matters is that the referral is made voluntarily and with the intention of relying on the person’s version.
Illustration:
A businessman is accused of fraud in a civil suit. When questioned, he says, “My accounts manager handled all the transactions; he will confirm everything.” If the accounts manager then says that certain accounts were falsified, that statement is admissible against the businessman.
The businessman cannot later reject the manager’s statement by claiming it is unreliable, because he himself directed the other party to rely on that person’s version.
Important Features:
- The reference can be express (“Talk to X, he knows”) or implied (producing a letter from someone else as proof).
- The person referred must make the statement in response to the referral or in connection with the matter referred.
- The party referring cannot pick and choose from the statement. The entire statement is considered.
This prevents manipulation where parties attempt to refer others only when it suits them and then reject their unfavorable admissions later.
Electronic and Modern Forms of Reference:
In the digital era, this principle also applies to:
- Forwarded emails with endorsement
- CC’d and BCC’d business communications
- Chat transcripts where one party says, “Ask X, he handled this deal”
Statements made by the referred person in these communications, if properly authenticated, may qualify under Section 18.
Judicial Observations and Commentary:
Courts have underlined that referral amounts to acknowledgment. Once you give someone as a source of truth, you accept the consequences of what they say. However, courts also look at whether the referral was genuine, relevant to the issue, and whether the person referred was indeed connected to the matter.
This section ensures honesty and consistency in legal proceedings, especially where parties use third parties as buffers or intermediaries.
Case Law Example:
Emperor v. Lakshmandas (1930)
In this case, a party to the proceeding told the investigating officer to speak to his accountant about the transactions. When the accountant gave statements that revealed irregularities, the party tried to disown them. The court ruled that the referral made the accountant’s statements relevant and admissible under what would now be Section 18.
Conclusion:
Section 18 ensures that when a party places trust in another person’s knowledge or judgment, the statements made by that referred person become relevant. This discourages selective endorsement and enforces accountability. It reinforces the legal idea that one cannot distance oneself from the consequences of a referral, especially when it was made to avoid direct answers or to delegate responsibility.
For Section 19 to 21 of the BSA, check out Part 2, Link: https://www.lawsho.com/ghost/#/editor/post/696cebd70298210001191b16
