According to the lesson, the distinction between **relevancy and admis…

Question

According to the lesson, the distinction between **relevancy and admissibility** under the Indian Evidence Act is:

Accepted Answer

C. {'text': 'A fact may be legally relevant, yet its reception may be prohibited on grounds of public policy or some other ground; and every admissible fact need not be relevant under the Act', 'label': 'C'}

1. Lesson 11 states the rule expressly: "**Relevancy and admissibility are not co-extensive or interchangeable terms.**"
2. A fact may be legally relevant, yet its reception in evidence may be prohibited on the grounds of **public policy** or on some other ground (e.g. privileged communications under Sections 122-129).
3. Similarly, every admissible fact is not necessarily "relevant" under Chapter II — Chapter X makes a number of facts admissible without their being relevant in Chapter II terms.
4. The two concepts therefore overlap but do not coincide.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 11 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872), pp. 251-272._

Answer

{'text': 'Relevancy and admissibility are co-extensive terms; every relevant fact is admissible and every admissible fact is relevant under the Act regardless of any other rule of public policy or substantive law in force', 'label': 'A'}

Answer

{'text': 'Relevancy and admissibility are entirely opposite concepts; if a fact is relevant it cannot be admissible under any provision of any Indian law in force in any State of India regardless of any other rule or doctrine of public policy', 'label': 'B'}

Answer

{'text': 'Relevancy is governed entirely by the Code of Civil Procedure and admissibility entirely by the Code of Criminal Procedure under any provision of any Indian law in force regardless of any other rule or doctrine of public policy', 'label': 'D'}