“Relevancy and Admissibility are neither synonymous nor is the one included in other.” Elucidate this statement.

Question: “Relevancy and Admissibility are neither synonymous nor is the one included in other.” Elucidate this statement. [U.P.J.S. 2000, UPILIS 2014]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [“Relevancy and Admissibility are neither synonymous nor is the one included in other.” Elucidate this statement.]

Answer

The expressions ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ are often taken to be synonymous. But they are not the same. Their legal implications are different. All admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant evidence is not admissible. Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility is the species.

There are certain essential distinctions between the two terms which are as follow:

1. When facts are so related as to render the existence or non-existence of other facts probable according to the common course of events or human conduct, they are called relevant. However, when facts have been declared to be legally relevant under the Indian Evidence Act, they become admissible
2. The relevancy of facts is founded on logic and human experience. But admissibility of a fact is founded on law and not on logic.
3. The question regarding relevancy has been enunciated in Section 5 to Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act while the question of admissibility is provided in Section 56 and the following sections.
4. Relevancy of facts signifies what facts are necessary to prove or disprove a fact in issue. But admissibility of a fact is a decisive factor between relevancy and proof.
5. Relevancy merely implies the relevant facts but admissibility implies what facts are admissible and what is not as in accordance with the act
6. Relevancy is the cause and admissibility is the effect.
7. The court may apply its discretion while determining whether a fact is relevant or not but regarding admissibility of evidence before the court, there lays no scope for the court to apply its discretion.
8. Lastly, the most significant distinctive factor is that all admissible facts are relevant but all relevant facts are not admissible. It is only legally relevant facts that are admissible.

In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State AIR 1998, SC 1850, it was observed by Apex Court-

“More often the expression 'Relevancy’ and 'Admissibility’ are used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct and different for more often than not, a fact which is relevant may not be admissible, for example, communication made by spouses during the marriage or between an Advocate and his client through relevant are not admissible, so also the facts which are admissible may not be relevant, for example, Question permitted to be put in cross-examination to test the veracity or impeach the credit of witness though are admissible but not relevant.”

Therefore, based on the above differences between the admissibility and relevancy of a fact to be taken as evidence before the court, it is clear that all legally relevant facts are admissible, but all logically relevant facts are not admissible. What is legally receivable is admissible, whether it is logically probative or not. For practical purposes, relevant fact means what is legally admissible in evidence. Only the evidence which is legally admissible should be received by the court. Hence, this satisfies why relevancy & Admissibility are neither synonymous nor is the one included in the other.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X