Relevancy and Admissibility: Concept Explained
Relevancy refers to the logical connection between a fact presented in court and the fact in issue or a relevant fact under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sections 5 to 55 deal with what facts are considered relevant. A relevant fact is one that helps the court understand the existence, non-existence, or probability of a fact in issue. Relevancy is based on logic, human conduct, and natural principles. For example, motive, preparation, conduct, and conspiracy are considered relevant facts because they have a rational connection to the central issue. However, mere relevancy does not automatically ensure that the fact will be accepted as evidence unless it is legally permissible.
Legal Admissibility Under the Evidence Act
Admissibility refers to the legal permission granted by the court to allow a piece of evidence to be presented and considered. A fact may be logically relevant but still inadmissible if the law prohibits it. For instance, Section 122 makes communications between spouses during marriage inadmissible, and Section 24 excludes confessions obtained by inducement, threat, or promise. Admissibility is therefore a matter of strict legal rule, whereas relevancy is founded on logic. Evidence must satisfy both conditions—first it must be relevant, and then it must qualify as admissible under statutory provisions.
Distinction Between Relevancy and Admissibility
Relevancy determines whether a fact relates to the matter in issue, while admissibility ensures that the fact can legally be used in court. A fact may be relevant but excluded due to privilege, illegality, or public policy. Conversely, some facts are admissible through special provisions even if they are not logically relevant, such as dying declarations under Section 32. Courts often treat relevancy as the wider concept, with admissibility as the narrower legal filter that screens the evidence. Only facts that pass both tests ultimately influence judicial determination.
Real-Time Example
Suppose a person is charged with murder. The accused’s prior threats to the victim are relevant (Sections 8 and 14) because they show motive and intention. However, if these threats were recorded through an illegally tapped phone conversation without proper authorization, the court may treat the material as inadmissible depending on privacy and procedural grounds. Thus, the fact is relevant but not admissible. The final decision must rely only on what is both legally admissible and logically connected to the issue.
Mnemonic to Remember – “RLAP”
R – Relevant facts under Sections 5–55
L – Legal rules determine admissibility
A – Admissible only when law allows
P – Public policy and privileges may bar use
“RLAP: Relevant, Legal, Admissible, Policy.”
About lawgnan
Understand the core concepts of relevancy and admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act with simplified, exam-oriented notes on Lawgana.in. We help you distinguish between what is logically relevant and what is legally admissible, supported by practical illustrations and memory tricks like “RLAP.” Our structured explanations make complex evidence rules easy for judiciary aspirants, law students, and legal professionals. Whether preparing for exams or court practice, Lawgana.in provides reliable guides, case-based learning, and crisp summaries to strengthen your interpretation of Sections 5–55 and related provisions. Visit Lawgana.in today and master the foundations of evidence law.
