Supreme Court: Letters Lack Evidentiary Value in Court

Title: Supreme Court Bench says letters have no evidentiary value

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah stated that letters do not hold any evidentiary value in court. The judgement came in response to a plea filed by Vijay Kumar Sinha, the Bihar Speaker, against the Patna High Court's decision to recognize letters sent by 5 rebel MLAs as valid evidence.

The bench further clarified that simply producing letters or documents in court does not prove the contents as true and accurate. The presumption that a document is genuine only applies to government documents and not personal correspondences. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, personal letters cannot be considered as valid proof in a court of law.

The PIL was filed in response to the 2019 Bihar Assembly elections, which saw a number of party members switching sides. The rebels, who had defected from their respective parties, had submitted letters to the Governor expressing their support for forming a new government. This led to the disqualification of these MLAs under the anti-defection law.

However, the Patna High Court had overturned the Speaker's decision to disqualify the MLAs, ruling that the letters sent by them were legally valid and had to be considered prima facie. The High Court also stated that the rebels' actions could not be considered as defection as they had not joined another party.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, rejected the High Court's judgement, stating that personal correspondences between individuals cannot be used as evidence to decide on questions of defection. The court also highlighted that the MLAs in question had continued to remain in the party they were elected from and had not joined another party, making the reason for their disqualification valid.

The bench further observed that recognizing personal letters as evidence in court would lead to a dangerous precedent where politicians could easily manipulate or forge letters to support their claims. This, in turn, would result in destabilizing the foundation of the anti-defection law.

The Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms the basic principles of law, which require concrete evidence to prove any statement. It also emphasizes the need for objective and impartial decision-making in such crucial matters. Using personal letters as legal proof not only undermines the judicial process but also opens the door to misuse and exploitation.

In conclusion, letters or any personal correspondences cannot be considered as valid evidence in a court of law, unless supported by corroborating evidence. The Supreme Court's judgement serves as a reminder to all concerned parties that the law must be upheld and followed in its true spirit. The decision also highlights the need for strict adherence to rules and regulations to maintain the sanctity of the legal system.