Section 153 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 153
Section 153 deals with questions asked in court without reasonable grounds. It is meant to regulate the conduct of advocates during legal proceedings, especially during examinations or cross‑examinations of witnesses.
Exact Meaning
If a question is asked without reasonable grounds (meaning there is no proper reason or legal basis for asking it), the court has the authority to take notice of it.
“Without reasonable grounds” could include:
Questions meant to harass or intimidate a witness.
Questions that are irrelevant to the case.
Questions asked maliciously or to waste time.
If the question was asked by an advocate (lawyer), the court can report the matter to the authority responsible for overseeing that advocate—for example:
The High Court (if the advocate is under its jurisdiction)
The Bar Council (professional regulatory body for lawyers)
Purpose of Section 153
Protect witnesses from harassment:
Ensures that witnesses are not subjected to unfair or irrelevant questions in court.
Maintain professional standards for advocates:
Advocates are expected to follow professional ethics. Section 153 provides a mechanism to report improper behavior.
Maintain the dignity of the court:
Prevents misuse of questioning during proceedings which could delay or disrupt the judicial process.
How it Works in Practice
During a trial, an advocate asks a question to a witness.
The judge evaluates whether the question has reasonable grounds.
Example of reasonable grounds: Asking for clarification of a witness’s earlier statement.
Example of unreasonable grounds: Asking a personal or offensive question irrelevant to the case.
If the court finds the question unreasonable, and it was asked by an advocate:
The court can report the advocate to their professional authority.
The professional authority (like the Bar Council) may take disciplinary action if necessary.
Key Takeaways
Section 153 does not punish the advocate directly; it allows the court to report misconduct.
The main goal is ethical regulation, not criminal punishment.
It balances two things: freedom of questioning in court vs. protecting witnesses and maintaining legal ethics.
RELATED Blog
comments