Lesson 11 explains the distinction between **logical relevancy** and *…

Question

Lesson 11 explains the distinction between **logical relevancy** and **legal relevancy**. Which proposition correctly captures the relationship under the Indian Evidence Act?

Accepted Answer

B. {'text': 'Legal relevancy is to be considered as against logical relevancy under the Act; no fact however logically relevant is receivable in evidence unless it is declared by the Act to be relevant', 'label': 'B'}

1. Lesson 11 distinguishes the two concepts carefully.
2. A fact is **logically relevant** when it bears a casual relation with another fact rendering its existence or non-existence probable.
3. Under the Indian Evidence Act, **legal relevancy is preferred**: no fact is receivable in evidence, however logically relevant, unless it is **declared by the Act to be relevant**.
4. So all facts legally relevant are logically relevant, but the converse is not true — common-sense relevancy is wider than legal relevancy.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 11 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872), pp. 251-272._

Answer

{'text': 'Logical and legal relevancy are co-extensive; every logically relevant fact is legally relevant and admissible in every judicial proceeding under any provision of any law in force in any State of India regardless of context', 'label': 'A'}

Answer

{'text': 'Logical relevancy is always preferred over legal relevancy by the Court in every case under any provision of any law in force in any State of India regardless of context of the case in question', 'label': 'C'}

Answer

{'text': 'Legal relevancy is irrelevant under the Indian Evidence Act and is replaced by logical relevancy in every case under any provision of any law in force in any State of India regardless of any other consideration of any nature', 'label': 'D'}