Section 46 IEA: Facts bearing upon opinions of experts
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 46 IEA at a Glance
Section 46 IEA deals with facts bearing upon opinions of experts. From 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 40 BSA.
Section 46 IEA Bare Act Text
46. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts
Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
Illustrations(a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison.
The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain sea-wall.
The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other respects, but where there were no such sea-walls, began to be obstructed at about the same time, is relevant.
Source: Section 46, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 46 IEA in Simple Words
Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lets a party bring in facts that test the opinion of an expert. A fact might have no direct connection to the dispute on its own. It still becomes a relevant fact (a fact that can be presented in court) if it backs up or contradicts the opinion of an expert.
This rule works only when the expert opinion itself is relevant. Once the court can consider the view of a specialist, either side may prove outside facts that agree with or clash with that view.
The illustrations show how parties can back up or challenge a specialist. In a dispute over whether a specific poison harmed someone, specialists may claim or deny that the substance causes particular symptoms. A party can then prove that other people poisoned by that substance showed those symptoms. Similarly, when a sea-wall is blamed for blocking a harbour, a party can show that comparable harbours without sea-walls also became blocked around that period.
When Section 46 IEA Applies
- The opinion of an expert is relevant to a question before the court.
- A party brings a fact that would not be relevant to the case on its own.
- That fact either backs up the opinion of the expert or goes against it.
Example of Section 46 IEA
Section 46 IEA in the BSA
Section 46 IEA is now covered under Section 40 BSA.
Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 40 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024 without any change in wording.
View detailed comparison (IEA 46 vs BSA 40) →FAQs on Section 46 IEA
What is Section 46 IEA?▼
Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes outside facts relevant if they support or contradict the opinion of an expert. This applies whenever the opinion of the expert is relevant to the case.
Can a party use Section 46 IEA to challenge the opinion of an expert with events involving other people or places?▼
Yes. Even if events involving other people or places are not otherwise connected to the dispute, they become relevant if they are inconsistent with a relevant expert opinion.
Does Section 46 IEA apply if the opinion of the expert is not relevant to the case?▼
No. Outside facts supporting or contradicting an expert can be brought in only when the opinion of that expert is relevant.
What is Section 46 IEA in BSA?▼
Section 40 BSA. Section 46 IEA became Section 40 BSA on 1 July 2024 without any change in wording.
Have questions about Section 46 IEA?
Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, or how it applies to your situation.
Ask NyayGuru →Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.
Sources: Bare Act Text, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ·