Section 43 BSA: Opinion as to Usages, Tenets and Related Matters

Section 43 BSA explains when opinions of persons with special knowledge of customs, religious institutions and local terminology are relevant in court.

Introduction

Section 43 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the relevance of opinions concerning the usages and tenets of a body of persons or family, the constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations, and the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people.

Courts may encounter disputes involving the practices of religious institutions, the internal administration of charitable foundations, family customs or expressions whose meanings differ according to locality or community. In such cases, the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge about the subject may assist the court.

For example, if a dispute arises concerning the customary procedure for appointing the head of a religious institution, the opinion of persons familiar with that institution’s established practices may be relevant.

Section 43 BSA corresponds to Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Bare Act: Section 43 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

43. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant.—

When the Court has to form an opinion as to—

(i) the usages and tenets of any body of men or family;

(ii) the constitution and governance of any religious or charitable foundation; or

(iii) the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people,

the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are relevant facts.

Meaning and Explanation of Section 43 BSA

Section 43 recognises that some questions require knowledge of established practices, institutional arrangements or specialised local language. The opinions of persons with special means of knowledge about these matters are relevant when the court must form an opinion on them.

The provision covers three categories:

1. Usages and tenets: The established practices and beliefs of a body of persons or family.
2. Constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations: The arrangements, rules and practices under which such institutions are constituted and administered.
3. Meaning of local or group-specific terms: The meaning of words or expressions used in particular districts or by particular classes of people.

The section does not make every opinion about a custom or institution relevant. The person must have special means of knowledge concerning the particular subject.

It is also important to distinguish relevance from proof. The court may consider the opinion, but it must independently evaluate the evidence and determine the legal issue.

Essential Elements of Section 43 BSA

1. The court must consider one of the specified matters

Section 43 applies when the court must form an opinion concerning one of the three categories identified in the provision.

A person’s opinion about an unrelated subject does not become relevant under this section merely because that person has experience or knowledge in another field.

2. The person must have special means of knowledge

The person must possess a particular basis for knowing about the subject. This may arise from sustained involvement with an institution, familiarity with its practices, participation in a relevant community or specialised knowledge of local terminology.

The precise basis of knowledge depends on the issue being considered.

3. The opinion must concern the relevant usage, institution or terminology

The opinion must be connected to the question before the court.

For example, a person familiar with the customary administration of a particular religious institution may be able to explain its established procedures. That person may not, merely by virtue of this familiarity, be qualified to provide an opinion on every legal question concerning the institution.

4. The opinion is relevant but not automatically conclusive

Section 43 permits the court to consider qualifying opinions as relevant facts. It does not require the court to accept an opinion simply because the witness claims special knowledge.

The court may consider the person’s experience, the basis of the opinion, supporting records, the consistency of the practice and other evidence.

Category One: Usages and Tenets of a Body of Persons or Family

The first category concerns the usages and tenets of a body of persons or family.

In this context, usages refer to established practices or modes of conduct, while tenets refer to principles, doctrines or beliefs associated with a group.

The provision may be relevant when the court must understand established practices within a community, family or organised group.

Example 1: Customary succession in a family

A dispute arises over the customary procedure for succession to a particular family office. A person who has longstanding knowledge of the family’s practices may provide an opinion about the established procedure.

That opinion may be relevant under Section 43, although the court must still determine whether the claimed custom exists and has legal effect.

Also Read: Section 11 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Facts Relevant When Right or Custom Is in Question

Example 2: Practices of a religious sect

A dispute arises concerning whether a particular ceremony forms part of the established practices of a religious sect. Persons with special knowledge of the sect’s usages and tenets may offer relevant opinions.

The court must assess the basis of their knowledge and consider other available evidence.

Example 3: Established community practices

A question arises concerning a longstanding practice followed by a particular community. Persons familiar with the community’s practices may provide opinions about the existence and meaning of that usage.

Section 43 makes such opinions relevant when the statutory requirements are satisfied. It does not automatically establish that every community practice is legally enforceable.

Category Two: Constitution and Governance of Religious or Charitable Foundations

The second category concerns the constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations.

A foundation may have established arrangements concerning its administration, management, offices, succession to leadership or performance of religious and charitable functions. Where the court must form an opinion about those arrangements, the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge may be relevant.

Example 1: Appointment of the head of a religious institution

A dispute arises over the procedure for appointing the head of a religious institution. Persons familiar with the institution’s established rules and practices may provide relevant opinions about the customary procedure.

The court must consider the governing documents, applicable law and other relevant evidence before determining the issue.

Example 2: Administration of a charitable foundation

A dispute arises concerning the established method of administering a charitable foundation. A person with special knowledge of its historical management practices may provide an opinion about the institution’s governance.

The opinion may assist the court in understanding the institution’s arrangements, but it does not override a binding statute, governing instrument or judicial decision.

Example 3: Management of a religious endowment

A question arises about the customary allocation of responsibilities among officeholders of a religious endowment. Persons familiar with the institution’s constitution and established practices may provide relevant opinions.

The court must distinguish evidence about the institution’s practices from the ultimate legal question of who has the right to exercise a particular power.

Category Three: Meaning of Words or Terms Used in Particular Districts or by Particular Classes of People

The third category concerns the meaning of words or terms used in specific localities or by particular classes of people.

The ordinary dictionary meaning of a word may not always explain how it is used in a particular district, trade, community or professional group. Section 43 permits the court to consider opinions from persons with special means of knowledge about such usage.

Example 1: A local expression in a land dispute

A document concerning land uses a local expression whose meaning is disputed. Persons familiar with the language and customary usage of that locality may explain what the expression ordinarily means in that context.

Their opinions may help the court interpret the document.

Example 2: A term used by a particular occupational group

An agreement uses a term that has a specialised meaning within a particular trade. Persons familiar with the terminology of that trade may provide relevant opinions about its meaning.

The court can consider those opinions when interpreting the document, subject to the surrounding evidence and applicable law.

Example 3: A regional expression in a family document

A family document uses a regional expression to describe a relationship, responsibility or customary arrangement. Persons familiar with the relevant regional usage may explain the expression’s meaning.

The opinion is relevant because the term’s meaning may depend on the particular locality or class of people using it.

What Does “Special Means of Knowledge” Mean?

The phrase “special means of knowledge” is central to Section 43.

It means that the person must have a particular basis for knowing about the usage, institutional arrangement or terminology in question. The section does not prescribe a single formal qualification for every category.

Depending on the issue, the basis of knowledge may include:

• Longstanding involvement with a religious or charitable institution.
• Familiarity with the established practices of a family or community.
• Experience participating in or observing the relevant customary practices.
• Special knowledge of a local dialect, trade vocabulary or community-specific terminology.
• Knowledge acquired through responsibilities involving the institution or practice.

The court must assess whether the person’s experience genuinely provides a basis for the opinion.

A person’s seniority, social position or membership of a community does not automatically make every opinion relevant. The connection between the person’s knowledge and the issue before the court remains important.

Is an Opinion Under Section 43 BSA Binding on the Court?

No. Section 43 makes qualifying opinions relevant facts; it does not make them conclusive proof.

The court may consider:

1. The person’s basis of knowledge.
2. The person’s experience with the relevant custom, institution or terminology.
3. Whether the opinion is consistent with established practice.
4. Whether historical records or governing documents support the opinion.
5. Whether other witnesses provide consistent or contradictory evidence.
6. Whether the claimed practice is recognised by the applicable law.

For example, a person familiar with a religious institution may state that a particular procedure has traditionally been followed for appointing its head. The court may consider the opinion, but it must also examine the institution’s governing documents and applicable legal requirements.

Also Read: Section 3 – Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts – BSA 2023

Important Judgments Relating to Section 43 BSA

The following decisions interpreted the former Indian Evidence Act or considered principles relevant to customary practices and institutional governance. They are useful for understanding Section 43 BSA, but they are not direct interpretations of the new provision.

1. Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996)

Citation: (1996) 8 SCC 705

Court: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court considered issues involving a religious institution and the legal principles applicable to its administration and religious practices.

The decision is relevant to the distinction between questions concerning religious usages or institutional practices and the legal rules governing the institution. Evidence about established practices may assist the court in understanding the institution, but the legal effect of those practices must be determined under the applicable law.

Legal principle: When a dispute involves the practices or administration of a religious institution, the court must examine the relevant evidence and the governing legal framework rather than treating a witness’s opinion as automatically decisive.

2. State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh (1983)

Citation: (1983) 3 SCC 118

Court: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary value of historical and documentary material in a dispute involving succession and property. The judgment discussed the need to assess historical documents, genealogical material and other evidence carefully rather than accepting documents or opinions without examining their reliability and purpose.

Legal principle: Evidence concerning historical practices, family arrangements or customary matters must be evaluated in context. Its value depends on its reliability, relevance and the legal issue for which it is introduced.

This decision is relevant to the broader assessment of evidence about customs and family practices, although it should not be treated as a direct interpretation of Section 43 BSA.

3. State of Rajasthan v. Sajjanlal Panjawat (1973)

Citation: (1973) 1 SCC 500

Court: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court considered issues concerning the administration and management of a religious institution and the legal framework governing its affairs.

The case is relevant to disputes in which the constitution and governance of a religious institution must be considered alongside its established practices and the applicable law.

Legal principle: Questions concerning the management of a religious institution must be determined by examining its governing legal framework and relevant evidence. Evidence of practice may assist the court but cannot replace the applicable legal rules.

These decisions provide contextual guidance on institutional practices and related evidentiary issues. Their relevance to Section 43 lies in the subject matter, not in a claim that they directly interpreted the BSA provision.

Difference Between Sections 42 and 43 BSA

Basis	Section 42 BSA	Section 43 BSA
Main subject	Existence of a general custom or right	Usages, tenets, institutional governance and local terminology
Relevant opinion	Persons likely to know whether the custom or right exists	Persons with special means of knowledge about the specified subject
Typical example	Villagers’ customary right to use a well	Customary procedure for appointing the head of a religious institution
Scope	General customs or rights shared by a considerable class of persons	Three specified categories of knowledge
Purpose	Helps determine whether a general custom or right exists	Helps explain practices, institutional arrangements and specialised terms

Section 42 focuses on opinions about the existence of a general custom or right. Section 43 covers broader matters, including the practices of a body of persons or family, the governance of religious or charitable foundations, and local or group-specific meanings of words.

Section 43 BSA and Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Basis	Section 43 BSA	Section 49, Indian Evidence Act
Subject	Opinions as to usages, tenets and related matters	Same subject
First category	Usages and tenets of a body of persons or family	Same category
Second category	Constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations	Constitution and government of religious or charitable foundations
Third category	Meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people	Same category
Relevant persons	Persons having special means of knowledge	Same principle
Current status	In force from 1 July 2024	Repealed, subject to applicable savings provisions

Section 43 BSA substantially carries forward Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The wording has been reorganised, including the express use of numbered clauses.

Related Legal Provisions

• Section 42 BSA: Opinion as to the existence of a general custom or right.
• Section 44 BSA: Opinion on relationship, when relevant.
• Section 45 BSA: Grounds of opinion, when relevant.
• Section 11 BSA: Facts relevant when the existence of a right or custom is in question.
• Section 48 of the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The corresponding provision concerning opinions about general customs or rights.

These provisions should be read together when a dispute involves customary rights, institutional practices or opinions based on specialised knowledge.

Important Points for Law Students and Judiciary Exams

• Section 43 BSA corresponds to Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• It covers three categories: usages and tenets, governance of religious or charitable foundations, and local or group-specific terminology.
• The opinion must come from a person having special means of knowledge about the relevant subject.
• The section does not prescribe one universal professional qualification for all witnesses.
• The opinion is relevant but is not automatically conclusive proof.
• The court must assess the basis of the witness’s knowledge and the supporting evidence.
• Section 42 concerns opinions about the existence of general customs or rights, whereas Section 43 covers the three specified categories.
• Evidence of a custom or institutional practice cannot override a binding statutory provision.
• The legal effect of a claimed custom or practice must be determined under the applicable law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 43 of the BSA?

Section 43 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 makes relevant the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge concerning the usages and tenets of a body of persons or family, the constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations, and the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 43 BSA?

Section 43 BSA corresponds to Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Who can give an opinion under Section 43 BSA?

A person who has special means of knowledge concerning the particular usage, tenet, institutional arrangement or terminology may provide a relevant opinion. The court must assess whether the person’s knowledge is genuinely connected to the issue.

4. Does Section 43 apply to religious institutions?

Yes. It expressly covers the constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations and the usages and tenets of a body of persons or family.

5. Can a local expert explain the meaning of a regional word?

Yes. Where the court must determine the meaning of a word or term used in a particular district or by a particular class of people, the opinions of persons with special means of knowledge may be relevant.

6. Is an opinion under Section 43 conclusive proof?

No. The opinion is relevant evidence, but the court must evaluate it alongside the other evidence and applicable law.

7. What is the difference between Sections 42 and 43 BSA?

Section 42 concerns opinions about the existence of a general custom or right. Section 43 concerns usages and tenets of a body of persons or family, the governance of religious or charitable foundations, and the meaning of words or terms used in particular localities or by particular classes of people.

Conclusion

Section 43 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 enables courts to consider opinions from persons with special knowledge of customs, institutional governance and specialised terminology. It is useful where the meaning of a practice or expression cannot be understood adequately without knowledge of the relevant community or institution. However, the opinion does not automatically determine the legal issue. The court must assess the person’s basis of knowledge, the supporting evidence and the applicable legal rules.

For examinations, remember the three categories covered by Section 43: usages and tenets, constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations, and the meaning of local or group-specific terms.