Section 20 BSA: When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents Are Relevant

Section 20 BSA explains when oral admissions about document contents may be used as evidence and the exceptions to the general rule.

Introduction

Documents are an important form of evidence in Indian courts. Contracts, property deeds, receipts, letters and other written records may establish the rights and obligations of parties. However, a party cannot ordinarily prove the contents of a document simply by stating orally what the document contains.

Section 20 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) governs the relevance of oral admissions concerning the contents of documents. It establishes a general restriction and recognises two circumstances in which such admissions may be relevant: when the party establishes an entitlement to give secondary evidence of the document’s contents, or when the genuineness of a document produced is in question.

The provision must be read alongside the rules governing primary evidence, secondary evidence and proof of documentary contents. Understanding these rules is important for law students, judiciary aspirants and legal practitioners dealing with documentary evidence.

Bare Act: Section 20 BSA

20. When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.—

Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.

Source: Section 20, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning of Section 20 BSA

Section 20 establishes that oral admissions concerning the contents of a document are ordinarily not relevant for proving those contents unless one of the statutory conditions is satisfied.

An oral admission in this context is a spoken statement acknowledging or describing what a document contains. For example, a person may state that a written agreement contains a promise to repay a loan within six months.

The provision prevents parties from bypassing the legal requirements for proving documentary contents by relying merely on oral descriptions of documents.

General rule

The contents of a document must ordinarily be proved through the document itself or through a legally permissible form of secondary evidence. A party cannot simply substitute oral testimony about the contents for the required documentary proof.

For example, A claims that a written agreement requires B to pay ₹2,00,000. If the original agreement is available, A cannot ordinarily avoid the applicable rules of documentary evidence simply by asking a witness to repeat what the agreement allegedly states.

Exceptions

Section 20 recognises two circumstances in which oral admissions concerning documentary contents may be relevant:

1. The party seeking to prove the oral admission establishes that they are entitled to give secondary evidence of the document’s contents.
2. The genuineness of a document produced is in question.

These circumstances operate differently and must be assessed according to the statutory requirements.

Essential Elements of Section 20 BSA

1. The admission concerns documentary contents

The statement must relate to what a document contains. It may concern the terms of an agreement, the amount recorded in a receipt or the wording of a property deed.

2. Oral admissions are ordinarily not relevant for proving those contents

The general rule restricts the use of oral statements as substitutes for legally required documentary proof.

3. Secondary evidence must be legally permissible

Under the first exception, the party must establish an entitlement to give secondary evidence under the applicable provisions of the BSA. The mere absence of the original document is not sufficient in every case.

4. The genuineness of a produced document must be in question for the second exception

The second exception concerns a dispute over the authenticity of a document that has been produced. It does not automatically establish that the document is genuine or that its contents are true.

5. Relevance and proof are distinct

Even when an oral admission is relevant, the court must assess its evidentiary significance. The relevance of a statement does not necessarily establish the authenticity or truth of the document’s contents.

Exception 1: Entitlement to Give Secondary Evidence

The first exception applies when the party proposing to prove an oral admission establishes that they are entitled to give secondary evidence of the document’s contents under the applicable rules.

Secondary evidence refers to legally recognised alternatives to primary evidence. The BSA permits such evidence in specified circumstances, subject to the requirements applicable to the particular document and the form of evidence offered.

When may secondary evidence be permitted?

Depending on the circumstances, the original document may have been lost or destroyed, or another statutory ground may justify secondary evidence. The party must establish the relevant legal conditions before relying on an alternative form of proof.

The fact that the original is unavailable does not automatically make every oral statement about its contents admissible.

Example

A files a suit against B for repayment of ₹3,00,000 under a written loan agreement. The original agreement has been lost. A wishes to rely on B’s earlier oral acknowledgment that the agreement recorded the loan amount and repayment terms.

Also Read: Section 56 BSA: Proof of Contents of Documents

A must establish that secondary evidence of the agreement’s contents is legally permissible. Whether the oral admission can then be relied upon must be determined under Section 20 and the other applicable rules.

Legal significance

This exception balances two objectives. It prevents parties from circumventing documentary evidence requirements while allowing documentary contents to be proved through legally recognised alternatives when the statutory conditions are met.

Exception 2: Genuineness of a Produced Document Is in Question

The second exception applies when the genuineness of a document produced is in question.

Genuineness concerns whether a document is authentic or what it purports to be. A dispute may arise over whether a person signed an agreement, whether a deed was executed by the alleged author, or whether a document has been forged.

In such circumstances, an oral admission concerning the document may be relevant under Section 20.

Example

A produces an agreement allegedly signed by B. B denies signing the agreement and alleges that the signature is forged. A seeks to prove that B previously acknowledged the agreement’s contents orally.

Because the genuineness of the produced document is in question, the oral admission may be relevant under the second exception. The court must nevertheless evaluate the statement and the other evidence before deciding whether the agreement is authentic.

Legal significance

The exception permits the court to consider relevant oral admissions when authenticity is disputed. However, it does not mean that every oral statement about a disputed document becomes admissible or that the document is automatically proved genuine.

Difference Between the Two Exceptions

Basis	First exception	Second exception
Legal requirement	Entitlement to give secondary evidence must be established	Genuineness of a document produced is in question
Primary concern	Whether documentary contents may be proved through an alternative form of evidence	Whether the produced document is authentic
Example	A lost agreement whose contents may lawfully be proved through secondary evidence	An agreement produced in court whose signature is alleged to be forged
Automatic proof?	No	No

The first exception concerns the legal entitlement to use secondary evidence. The second concerns a dispute about the genuineness of a produced document.

Practical Examples of Section 20 BSA

Example 1: A missing loan agreement

A lends ₹2,00,000 to B under a written agreement. The original agreement is subsequently lost. A wants to prove the terms by relying on B’s earlier oral acknowledgment.

A must establish the legal basis for giving secondary evidence. The oral admission cannot automatically replace the required proof of the agreement.

Principle: The absence of an original document does not automatically make every oral statement about it relevant.

Example 2: A disputed property deed

A produces a property deed allegedly executed by B. B claims that the deed is forged. A seeks to introduce B’s earlier oral acknowledgment of the deed’s terms.

The oral admission may be relevant because the genuineness of the produced document is in question. The court must still assess the authenticity of the deed and the evidentiary value of the admission.

Principle: A dispute over authenticity may make an oral admission relevant without conclusively proving the document.

Example 3: Oral description of a contract

A witness states that a contract between A and B required B to pay ₹50,000 every month. The original contract is available, but the party seeking to prove its contents does not produce it or establish a legal basis for secondary evidence.

The party cannot ordinarily bypass the documentary evidence rules merely by asking the witness to describe the contract orally.

Principle: Documentary contents must be proved in accordance with the applicable law.

Example 4: A disputed receipt

A claims that a receipt issued by B records payment of ₹80,000. B disputes the receipt’s authenticity.

An oral admission concerning the receipt may be relevant under Section 20 because the genuineness of the produced document is in question. The court must still decide what weight, if any, the admission deserves.

Principle: Relevance of an admission does not automatically establish the genuineness or truth of the document.

Relevant Case Laws

Section 20 BSA substantially corresponds to Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The following decisions concern the related rules governing documentary and secondary evidence under the former Act. They help explain the evidentiary principles but should not be treated as direct interpretations of Section 20 BSA.

1. J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730

Legal principle: The Supreme Court examined the requirements for admitting secondary evidence and emphasised that a party must establish the legal basis for relying on it.

Relevance to Section 20: The decision illustrates why a party cannot automatically rely on an alternative form of evidence merely because the original document has not been produced. The statutory requirements for secondary evidence must be satisfied.

Also Read: Section 59 BSA: Proof of Documents by Primary Evidence

2. H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240

Legal principle: The Supreme Court explained that secondary evidence cannot be admitted merely because a photocopy is produced. The party must satisfy the applicable requirements for giving secondary evidence.

Relevance to Section 20: The judgment reinforces the distinction between an assertion about a document and legally sufficient proof of its contents. A party must comply with the applicable evidentiary rules.

3. Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, (1972) 4 SCC 562

Legal principle: The Supreme Court held that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not, by itself, prove its contents.

Relevance to Section 20: The decision illustrates the broader principle that producing a document and proving what it contains are distinct matters. The applicable rules governing proof of documents must be satisfied.

Clarification: These decisions concern the broader law of documentary and secondary evidence under the former Indian Evidence Act. They are not presented as judgments directly interpreting Section 20 BSA or deciding the precise scope of both exceptions.

Relationship Between Section 20 and Other BSA Provisions

Section 20 should be read alongside the provisions governing admissions and documentary evidence.

Provision	Subject	Relevance
Section 15	Admission defined	Establishes the meaning of an admission.
Section 19	Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf	Governs when admissions may be proved by or against their makers.
Section 20	Oral admissions as to contents of documents	Establishes the general restriction and the two exceptions.
Section 25	Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop	Clarifies the evidentiary effect of admissions.
Section 56	Proof of contents of documents	Governs the proof of documentary contents.
Section 57	Primary evidence	Addresses primary evidence.
Section 58	Secondary evidence	Identifies recognised forms of secondary evidence.
Section 59	Proof of documents by primary evidence, except in cases mentioned	Must be read with the rules permitting secondary evidence.
Section 63	Admissibility of electronic records	Addresses the admissibility of electronic records under the applicable statutory requirements.

Section 20 and secondary evidence

Section 20 expressly refers to the rules governing secondary evidence. A party seeking to rely on the first exception must establish the applicable statutory basis and comply with the requirements for the particular form of evidence offered.

Section 20 and electronic or digital records

Electronic and digital records are also governed by the BSA’s provisions on documentary evidence. An email, message or digitally stored document may contain an admission, but its authenticity, contents and admissibility must be assessed under the applicable provisions.

Section 20 should not be treated as a substitute for the specific requirements governing electronic or digital records.

Corresponding Provision Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The corresponding provision was Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, titled When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.

Section 20 of the BSA substantially reproduces the earlier provision. Both establish the general rule that oral admissions concerning documentary contents are not relevant unless the party establishes an entitlement to give secondary evidence or the genuineness of a produced document is in question.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed by Section 170 of the BSA with effect from 1 July 2024, subject to the applicable savings provisions. Proceedings covered by those savings may continue to be governed by the former Act.

For proceedings governed by the BSA, the correct statutory reference is Section 20 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Important Points for Law School and Judiciary Examinations

• Section 20 BSA governs the relevance of oral admissions concerning documentary contents.
• The corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was Section 22.
• The general rule is that oral admissions about documentary contents are ordinarily not relevant.
• The first exception applies when the party establishes an entitlement to give secondary evidence.
• The second exception applies when the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
• Loss of an original document does not automatically make secondary evidence admissible.
• Merely marking a document as an exhibit does not necessarily prove its contents.
• Relevance, admissibility, proof and evidentiary weight are separate questions.
• Electronic and digital records must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.
• Section 20 should be read with the BSA provisions governing primary and secondary evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 20 BSA?

Section 20 governs when oral admissions concerning the contents of documents are relevant. Such admissions are ordinarily not relevant unless the party establishes an entitlement to give secondary evidence or the genuineness of a produced document is in question.

2. What are the exceptions under Section 20 BSA?

The two circumstances are:

1. The party seeking to prove the admission establishes an entitlement to give secondary evidence of the document’s contents.
2. The genuineness of a document produced is in question.

3. Can oral evidence prove the contents of a missing document?

It may be possible where the party establishes that secondary evidence is legally permissible under the applicable statutory provisions. The mere fact that the original is missing does not automatically make every oral statement about its contents relevant.

4. What happens when the genuineness of a document is disputed?

An oral admission concerning the document may be relevant under Section 20. However, the court must still evaluate the authenticity and evidentiary significance of the document.

5. What is the difference between Section 20 BSA and Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Section 20 of the BSA substantially reproduces Section 22 of the former Indian Evidence Act. Both govern the relevance of oral admissions about documentary contents and recognise the same two circumstances.

6. Does Section 20 apply to electronic documents?

Section 20 concerns oral admissions about documentary contents. Electronic and digital records are also subject to the BSA’s specific provisions governing their proof and admissibility.

7. Is an admission about a document conclusive proof of its contents?

No. The relevance of an admission does not automatically establish the truth or authenticity of a document. Section 25 of the BSA provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, although they may operate as estoppel.

8. Why is Section 20 important for judiciary examinations?

Section 20 tests the distinction between oral admissions, documentary evidence and secondary evidence. Candidates should remember the general rule, both exceptions, the corresponding provision under the former Act and the statutory requirements for proving documentary contents.

Conclusion

Section 20 BSA establishes an important restriction on proving documentary contents through oral admissions. It prevents parties from bypassing the statutory requirements for documentary evidence by simply recounting what a document allegedly states.

The provision recognises two circumstances in which oral admissions may be relevant: when the party establishes an entitlement to give secondary evidence and when the genuineness of a produced document is in question. Neither circumstance automatically establishes the truth or authenticity of the document.

For law students and judiciary aspirants, the key is to distinguish between the relevance of an oral admission and the legal requirements for proving a document. Reading Section 20 alongside the rules governing primary and secondary evidence provides a clearer understanding of documentary proof under Indian law.

dfsad