The term 'character' encompasses both a person's reputation and their behavior. Nevertheless, one can only provide evidence of an individual's overall reputation and general behavior, rather than citing specific actions that illustrate their reputation or behavior.

In civil cases, the use of character evidence is strictly regulated to prevent the introduction of unfair prejudice. This regulation ensures that decisions are made based on relevant facts rather than assumptions regarding a party's moral conduct. Courts generally avoid making inferences about a party's behavior based on character evidence unless it is specifically relevant to the proceedings.

Section 46 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) sets forth a key principle in civil litigation: the character of any party involved is generally deemed irrelevant to the proceedings. This provision seeks to promote fairness in judicial processes by concentrating on the facts pertinent to the legal issues at hand, rather than on the personal history or reputation of those involved.

What Section 46 BSA Specifies:

Section 46 BSA states: In civil proceedings, the character of any participant is not relevant, unless specified otherwise by this Act. This clause underscores that in the majority of civil lawsuits, an individual's reputation or past actions cannot influence the outcome of the case. The emphasis should be placed on the evidence and facts that are specifically relevant to the legal matters in dispute.

Importance of Section 46 BSA:

• The primary objective of Section 46 BSA is to eliminate bias and uphold the integrity of the trial process. Allowing a party's character to serve as evidence could unjustly sway the result.
• If evidence of a party's previous dishonesty were admitted, it could create prejudice against that party, even if the current case has no relation to such conduct.
• By disallowing general character evidence, courts aim to ensure that their decisions are grounded in factual evidence and legal standards, rather than being influenced by personal perceptions of a party's character.

Exceptions to This Principle:

• Character evidence is not admissible in civil cases unless it is admissible to prove the character of a person on whom the claim has been filed, as in accusations of defamation, custody claims, or actions based on negligence.
• Certain cases, such as defamation suits, may require character evidence to verify the truth of statements under dispute.
• Court may allow evidence related to specific conduct to show habitual behavior in cases like negligence or fraud, where repeated acts of misconduct are relevant.

While Section 46 sets a standard rule, there are circumstances where character evidence may be deemed relevant:

• If a party's character is closely aligned with the facts in question, it may be admissible, provided it has a direct link to the disputed matter.
• In breach of contract cases, the company's past reliability in fulfilling contracts may be relevant, while unrelated aspects of character, like philanthropic efforts, are not.

Case Laws Addressing Character Evidence:

• Abdul Shakur and others v. Kotwalewshar Prasad and others: The Allahabad High Court ruled that no conclusive evidence linked the alleged misconduct to the debts claimed, as the insolvent's bad character was not relevant to the case.
• Wiggett v. White: This case confirmed the exclusion of character evidence in civil cases unless directly relevant to the facts, highlighting the risk of unfair bias.
• Mohd. Yasin & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. (AIR 1972 All 280): The Supreme Court ruled that a party's general reputation for honesty cannot be presented as evidence in property disputes.

Case Example:

• If the case concerned ownership rights, evidence of a party's honesty would be irrelevant; the court would instead focus on factual evidence related to ownership.
• In a car accident case, presenting evidence of the defendant's history of reckless driving would likely be inadmissible unless relevant to the specific incident.

Another Instance: Imagine a case where an individual is sued for damages following a car accident. If the plaintiff tries to present evidence of the defendant's history of reckless driving, the court is likely to declare this evidence inadmissible unless it is clearly pertinent to the specific incident in question.

Conclusion:
In the Indian legal system, character evidence holds significant importance, albeit secondary to direct evidence. It serves as a crucial resource for evaluating witness credibility, understanding the accused's behavior, and assessing case probabilities. To safeguard the accused's rights, its application must adhere to principles of justice, necessity, and due process. By carefully analyzing character evidence, Indian courts can attain a deeper insight into the individuals involved, ensuring justice prevails. The relevance of character evidence should be thoughtfully assessed, considering the applicable laws on admissibility and its potential effects, while adhering to fairness and justice for all parties.

Section 46 of the BSA is vital for ensuring that civil litigation is fair and centered around relevant facts. By largely excluding character evidence, this section aids in averting bias and guarantees that rulings are based on substantive legal issues rather than personal histories or reputations. Though character evidence can occasionally hold relevance, it must have a specific connection to the case facts. Courts will meticulously assess whether such evidence meets this standard, as illustrated in landmark cases like Mohd. Yasin & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. By adhering to these tenets, Section 46 upholds the integrity of civil proceedings and enhances the just nature of the legal system.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565