Denial of cross-examination violates the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

“Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”

-John Henry Wigmore

Every person in India has the right to a fair trial. This is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This, in essence, is what makes cross- examination important. Cross-examination is a fundamental component of the legal process and plays a pivotal role in the Indian Legal System.

Cross-examination allows the rival party to the litigation to thoroughly analyze and challenge the evidence brought forward by the other side’s witness. Cross-examination is a statutory right and denying the opportunity for cross- examination might violate the fundamental right to a fair trial. Cross-examination seeks out the truth. Separation of lies from the truth is essential during cross-examination. Instant case is one of the glaring example of its own kind where without affording any opportunity to the defendants, the suit was decided against them on the false pretext that their counsel had waived the right to cross-examination by claiming that the earlier cross-examination done with the witnesses was sufficient, despite the fact that no such cross-examination was ever conducted with any of the witnesses during the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or Sub-Divisional Officer.

1. The Revenue Courts in India play a pivotal role in adjudicating disputes related to land ownership, tenancy rights, mutation, partition, declaration of khatedari rights and right of way, land revenue, etc. These Courts are presided over by the administrative officers rather than judicially trained Judges, who often function as the first point of access to justice for millions of rural citizens and rustic villagers residing in rural areas. However, their rights are hampered by procedural delays, due to inadequate legal knowledge among the officers posted in these Revenue Courts and lack of standardization. The instant case is a glaring example of procedural lapse occurred in the present case where the suit, filed by the respondents, has been decreed without affording the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine the respondents’ witnesses.

2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred as ‘the Board’) by which the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred as ‘the RAA’) has been quashed and set aside.

3. By passing the judgment dated 20.06.2019, the RAA quashed and set aside the judgment dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘the SDO’) by which the suit filed by the respondents was decreed. The RAA quashed and set aside the judgment passed by the SDO on the ground that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioners. Hence, the matter was remitted to the SDO by granting opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioners and for fresh adjudication of the matter, on its merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit for correction of entries was filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the SDO, wherein, statements of two witnesses namely Rajendra S/o Sugan Singh (PW-1) and Rajendra S/o Netram (PW-2) were recorded but no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to them. Counsel submits that in the order dated 23.02.2018 it was noted by the SDO that counsel appearing on their behalf Mr. Sarjeet Choudhary had put a note in the order-sheet that whatever cross- examination has been done with the witnesses on earlier occasion, be read as it is. Counsel submits that Mr.Sarjeet Choudhary was engaged as their counsel by th