Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In today's transparent governance era, the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) empowers citizens to access public records crucial for legal battles. But here's a common dilemma: Can a document received through RTI be considered primary evidence in court? If you're a litigant in a property dispute, contract case, or civil suit relying on government records, this question could make or break your case.
This blog dives deep into the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, analyzing key judicial precedents to clarify why RTI documents typically qualify as secondary evidence, not primary. We'll cover definitions, admissibility rules, exceptions, and practical steps. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, evidence rules are strict to ensure authenticity. Primary evidence is defined narrowly in Section 62 as the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. This means the original document must be physically presented. Explanations cover duplicates in uniform processes or documents executed in parts, but photocopies or copies don't qualify unless they meet specific criteria. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414Navas VS Abdul Lathief - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 144Cement Corporation Of India LTD. VS Purya Etc. Etc. - 2004 7 Supreme 711Ravindran P. R. S/o Raman VS Lakshmi W/o Late Raman - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 647
In contrast, Section 64 mandates that documents be proved by primary evidence, except in cases allowing secondary evidence under Section 65. Secondary evidence includes certified copies (Section 63(1)), oral accounts, or counterparts. Public documents under Section 74—often the target of RTI requests—require certified copies as secondary evidence. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414
As one ruling states: Primary evidence is the original document (Section 62); photocopies or copies require secondary evidence foundation (Sections 64-65, notice under 66). Navas VS Abdul Lathief - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 144Ravindran P. R. S/o Raman VS Lakshmi W/o Late Raman - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 647Cement Corporation Of India LTD. VS Purya Etc. Etc. - 2004 7 Supreme 711
The RTI Act facilitates access to public records, but it doesn't hand over originals. Under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, citizens can obtain certified copies even for sensitive matters. These are explicitly secondary evidence under Section 63(1) of the Evidence Act. YASHWANT SINHA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR - 2019 4 Supreme 269
A key case illustrates this: A petitioner sought RTI records for a civil suit on title/possession. The authority couldn't provide a certified copy as records were missing. The court held: Under Section 65(e) read with Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no document other than a certified copy of secondary evidence would be admissible in evidence. Secondary evidence is permissible under Section 65, but via court summons (Order XVI Rule 4B CPC). The writ was dismissed due to alternative remedies. R. R. Antony S/o Raphel VS Additional Tahsildar, Kannayanur Taluk - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 685
Another precedent reinforces: It is clear that under the Right to Information Act, a citizen can get a certified copy of a document under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act even if the matter pertains to security or relations... These copies can override privilege under Section 123 Evidence Act but remain certified copies. YASHWANT SINHA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR - 2019 4 Supreme 269YASHWANT SINHA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR - 2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3099
Key takeaway: RTI yields certified copies of public documents, aligning with Section 74's secondary evidence requirement. They are never the original document itself under Section 62. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414
RTI certified copies aren't barred from court; they're admissible as secondary evidence if foundational requirements are met. Section 65(e) allows them when originals are public documents and certified copies are produced. However, you must explain the original's absence—e.g., loss, destruction, or opponent's possession—with notice under Section 66. R. R. Antony S/o Raphel VS Additional Tahsildar, Kannayanur Taluk - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 685Ravindran P. R. S/o Raman VS Lakshmi W/o Late Raman - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 647
Uncertified photocopies fail without these steps. As noted: No secondary evidence of a document can be received unless a reason, as deemed sufficient by law, is given for non-production of the primary evidence. Luis Sales de Andrade e Souza VS Jijabai Namdev Satardekar - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 139
In practice, courts scrutinize: In a motor accident claim, a self-written letter wasn't marked as an exhibit because its genuineness couldn't be proved, lacking evidentiary value. United Engineering Works, through its proprietor Mr. Pramod Behl VS Basanti Tirkey - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1979 Similarly, additional evidence like statements requires proper summoning and proof. Rupreddy Srinivas Reddy VS Rupreddy Krishna Reddy - 2014 Supreme(AP) 1201
For registered documents, producing the original proves contents via primary evidence (Section 62). But RTI copies demand secondary proof. Chinnappan VS Rosemary - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 773
While RTI documents are secondary, exceptions exist:- Loss or Destruction of Original: Secondary evidence allowed under Section 65(c) if proved. The first part of clause (c) of Section 65... permits a party to produce secondary evidence when the document had been destroyed or lost. Luis Sales de Andrade e Souza VS Jijabai Namdev Satardekar - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 139- Public Documents: Certified copies suffice under Section 74, but still secondary. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414- Court Summons: Use Order XVI Rule 4B CPC to summon originals directly. R. R. Antony S/o Raphel VS Additional Tahsildar, Kannayanur Taluk - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 685
Limitations:- No elevation to primary status; always secondary.- Failure to lay foundation (e.g., no notice) is fatal. Ravindran P. R. S/o Raman VS Lakshmi W/o Late Raman - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 647- Mere production without leave may bar evidence under Order VII Rule 14 CPC: Documents... shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. S.Sreenivas Reddy vs Sudha Rao - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439527P.C. Ananda Lakshmi vs Sudha Rao - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439534
In property disputes, possession follows title, but proof via originals or proper secondary evidence is key. Plaintiffs proved title through original sale deeds; defendants failed on adverse possession. Chinnappan VS Rosemary - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 773
Don't rely solely on RTI copies:1. Summon Originals: File under Order XVI Rule 4B CPC in civil suits.2. Lay Secondary Foundation: Serve notice under Sections 65/66; prove loss if applicable.3. Seek Court Leave: For late documents, per Order VII Rule 14.4. RTI Strategically: Use for certified copies to support, not standalone proof.
If records are untraceable, argue Section 65 circumstances. In partition suits or claims, conduct like silence on joint property supports separate title claims. Rupreddy Srinivas Reddy VS Rupreddy Krishna Reddy - 2014 Supreme(AP) 1201
Documents received via RTI cannot be considered primary evidence—they are certified copies, qualifying as secondary under Sections 63(1), 65(e), and 74 of the Evidence Act. Primary evidence demands the original under Section 62. Courts allow RTI copies with proper proof, but summon originals for strength. R. R. Antony S/o Raphel VS Additional Tahsildar, Kannayanur Taluk - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 685YASHWANT SINHA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR - 2019 4 Supreme 269N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414
Key Takeaways:- RTI = Secondary evidence only.- Admissible with foundation (notice, loss proof).- Use court powers for originals.- Always consult a lawyer.
References:1. R. R. Antony S/o Raphel VS Additional Tahsildar, Kannayanur Taluk - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 685: RTI in civil suits; secondary via 65(e)/74.2. YASHWANT SINHA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR - 2019 4 Supreme 269: RTI certified copies override privilege.3. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414: Primary (62) vs. secondary definitions.4. Ravindran P. R. S/o Raman VS Lakshmi W/o Late Raman - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 647, Navas VS Abdul Lathief - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 144, Cement Corporation Of India LTD. VS Purya Etc. Etc. - 2004 7 Supreme 711: Originals required; copies secondary.5. Other: Luis Sales de Andrade e Souza VS Jijabai Namdev Satardekar - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 139, YASHWANT SINHA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR - 2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3099, etc., as cited.
Stay informed, file smart—justice favors the prepared.
#RTIIndia, #EvidenceAct, #LegalInsights
—Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. ... —The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. 62. Primary evidence. —Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Explanation 1. ... Sameem, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 556 held that certified copies received und....
The terms “primary and secondary evidence” apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received. 33. ... In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the RTI copy of the alleged sketch was not a secondary evidence. ... The High Court found that the photocopies cannot be ....
Thangamuthu and Other, (2010) 9 S.C.C. 712, It has been held as follows:- “It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary ... It has been further held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence b....
There are two parts in the provision, the first part would be the documents shall not be received without leave of the Court and second part would be received the documents in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. ... evidence. ... in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. ... It is also apparent that mere production....
There are two parts in the provision, the first part would be the documents shall not be received without leave of the Court and second part would be received the documents in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. ... evidence. ... in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. ... It is also apparent that mere production....
Therefore, the subject document cannot be received as part of the record. ... 33.2 Section 63 of the Evidence Act provides a list of the kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. ... 33.3 If the original document is available, it has to be produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. So long as the best evidence#HL_END....
Therefore, the subject document cannot be received as part of the record. ... 33.2 Section 63 of the Evidence Act provides a list of the kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. ... 33.3 If the original document is available, it has to be produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. So long as the best evidence#HL_END....
deny to the court access to that document, if it provides evidence that is relevant and otherwise admissible. ... Could it be said that what an officer under the RTI Act can permit, cannot be allowed by a court and that too superior courts under Section 123 of the Evidence Act. ... It is clear that under the Right to Information Act, a citizen can get a certified copy of a document under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act even if the matter pertains to security or relations....
kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. ... Therefore, the subject document cannot be received as part of the record. ... A party to the lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by the trial Court but if any party to the suit has laid foundation of leading of secondary ....
kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. ... Therefore, the subject document cannot be received as part of the record. ... A party to the lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by the trial Court but if any party to the suit has laid foundation of leading of secondary ....
This Court in view of the aforesaid position of law and looking to the order dated 11.01.2011 which is the self written letter to the Officer-In-Charge regarding non-involvement of the vehicle showing the reasons therein but the question is that while not marking it as an exhibit whether the trial Court has committed illegality or not? Further as would appear from the reply filed by the claimant that the said document has never been brought on record at the time of release of the vehicle and if involvement of the vehicle is itself in dispute due to its non-availability on the date of occurre....
6. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the said document can be admitted in evidence as primary evidence or secondary evidence.
04-03-1973 allegedly made by late Linga Reddy during his lifetime. The document sought to be received as additional evidence is a statement dt. This document was produced by P.W. 2 on receipt of summons from the Court on 21-07-1986.
So far as Ex.A1 is concerned, its contents have been proved by primary evidence viz., the production of document itself as contemplated under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. When the original registered document itself was produced, there cannot be any scope for the contention that the contents of the documents were not proved. The contents of document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence."
The first part of clause (c) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, permits a party to produce secondary evidence when the document had been destroyed or lost. No secondary evidence of a document can be received unless a reason, as deemed sufficient by law, is given for non-production of the primary evidence. The second part of said clause (c) comes into play when the party offering secondary evidence of the contents of the document cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
