Section 152 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds

Section 152 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

No such question as is referred to in section 151 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.

Illustrations

(a) An advocate is instructed by another advocate that an important witness is a dacoit. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.

(b) An advocate is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dacoit. The informant, on being questioned by the advocate, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.

(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dacoit. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.

(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking him if he is a dacoit.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 152

Section 152 mandates that no such question as is referred to in section 151 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.

Ethical & Professional Obligation: Counsels must have credible instructions or tangible materials before making damaging character imputations.
Bar on Speculative Slander: Prohibits advocates from asking defamatory questions based on mere rumor or malice.
Professional Responsibility: Enforces standards of professional conduct and trial decorum across the legal profession.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of Maharashtra v. Manglya (1973) 75 Bom LR 484: Held that an advocate who puts scandalous or defamatory questions in cross-examination without reasonable grounds violates Section 149 IEA (Section 152 BSA).
In re: An Advocate (AIR 1957 SC 149): The Supreme Court observed that advocates must exercise utmost care and restraint before putting questions imputing criminal conduct to witnesses.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Before cross-examining a witness on fraud or bribery, ensure your client has given you written instructions, affidavits, or documentary trails. If challenged by the court under Section 152, you must satisfy the judge that reasonable grounds exist.