Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Emphasis supplied)

25. In fact, the rule of evidence that the test of admissibility of evidence is only its relevancy, laid down inter-alia in Pooran Mal (supra) has been followed by our courts even after Puttaswamy (supra). In one of the most recent judgments in Yashwant Sinha & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director & Anr. 26 , where the issue before the Supreme Court was whether it should permit certain documents, which the State Authorities alleged had been unauthorisedly removed from the records of the Ministry of Defence, to be placed on record in a review petition; and whether the review petitioners should be permitted to rely upon such unauthorisedly procured documents. The Attorney General had submitted that the Supreme Court could not consider these documents. Dealing with this objection the Supreme Court opined as under:

"9. An issue has been raised by the learned Attorney with regard to the manner in which the three documents in question had been procured and placed before the Court. In this regard, as already noticed, the documents have been published in The Hindu newspaper on different dates. That apart, even assuming (2019) 6 SCC 1 _______________________________________________________________________ C.M.(M) 40/2019 page 30 of 46 that the documents have not been procured in a proper manner should the same be shut out of consideration by the Court ? In Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection this Court has taken the view that the "test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out".

(e) Although MP Sharma (supra) and Pooran Mal (supra) were decided before the right to privacy was authoritatively recognised as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy (supra), the challenge in those two cases also arose from allegations of violation of fundamental rights inter alia under Articles 20(3) and 14 of the Constitution. Also, the decision in Puttaswamy does not allude to any change in the principles of admissibility of evidence by reason of recognition of privacy as a fundamental right ; and in fact the principle of Pooran Mal has been followed by the Supreme Court even as recently as 2019 in Yashwant Sinha (supra), which is a post-Puttaswamy _______________________________________________________________________ C.M.(M) 40/2019 page 42 of 46 judgment, though in the context of documents procured illegally from a ministry and not in breach of any fundamental right ;