Section 32 BSA: Relevancy of Statements as to Law in Law Books

Section 32 BSA explains how courts may consider official law books and reports of foreign court rulings, including electronic and digital publications, when determining the law of another country.

Introduction

Courts may sometimes need to determine the law applicable in another country. This can arise in international commercial disputes, foreign contracts, cross-border transactions, matrimonial matters and disputes concerning rights governed by foreign law.

Section 32 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides that statements of law contained in books purporting to be published under the authority of the relevant country’s government are relevant. It also recognises reports of rulings of that country’s courts contained in books purporting to report those rulings. Both categories expressly include electronic and digital forms.

The provision is important because Indian courts may need reliable material to determine foreign law rather than relying on unsupported assertions about its contents.

The section does not mean that every website, textbook or online article describing foreign law automatically qualifies. The source must satisfy the statutory requirements. Section 32 also concerns relevance; the court must still interpret the law and determine how it applies to the dispute.

Section 32 substantially corresponds to Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with express recognition of electronic and digital publications.

Bare Act: Section 32 BSA

32. Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law books including electronic or digital form.—

When the Court has to form an opinion as to a law of any country, any statement of such law contained in a book purporting to be printed or published including in electronic or digital form under the authority of the Government of such country and to contain any such law, and any report of a ruling of the Courts of such country contained in a book including in electronic or digital form purporting to be a report of such rulings, is relevant.

Meaning of Section 32 BSA

Section 32 establishes two principal categories of material that may be relevant when a court has to form an opinion about the law of a country.

First, official law books: A statement of law contained in a book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of that country’s government and to contain that law is relevant.

Second, reports of court rulings: A report of a ruling of the courts of that country, contained in a book purporting to report those rulings, is relevant.

The provision expressly recognises electronic and digital forms for both categories.

For example, suppose an Indian court must determine the applicable law governing a contract made under the law of another country. An official publication containing that country’s legislation may be relevant under Section 32. A qualifying report of a ruling by that country’s courts may also be relevant.

The provision is not a general licence to rely on any online explanation of foreign law. It identifies particular types of law books and court reports that may be considered relevant.

Essential Elements of Section 32 BSA

1. The court must need to form an opinion about the law of a country

Section 32 applies when the court has to form an opinion as to a law of a country.

In Indian litigation, this provision is particularly important when the content of foreign law must be established. Foreign law is generally treated as a matter requiring proof, unlike Indian law in force, of which courts ordinarily take judicial notice under the applicable statutory rules.

Example: An Indian court is deciding a dispute involving a contract governed by Singapore law. The parties disagree about the legal consequences of a particular contractual clause. The relevant Singapore legislation and qualifying court reports may help the court determine the applicable law.

2. The statement of law must be in a qualifying publication

The first part of Section 32 concerns a book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the government of the relevant country and to contain its law.

The statutory requirement concerning governmental authority is important. A private textbook discussing a foreign statute does not automatically satisfy this part of Section 32 merely because it accurately describes the law.

The court must assess whether the publication falls within the category identified by the provision.

3. Reports of foreign court rulings are separately recognised

The second part of Section 32 concerns reports of rulings of the courts of the relevant country.

The text requires the ruling to be contained in a book purporting to be a report of those rulings. Unlike the first category, this part does not expressly require the report to be published under the authority of the foreign government.

A recognised law-report publication may therefore be relevant even where the publication requirement applicable to an official law book is not the basis on which it qualifies.

4. Electronic and digital publications are expressly included

Section 32 expressly refers to electronic and digital forms.

This reflects the modern practice of accessing legislation and judicial decisions through electronic publications, digital law books and online law-report collections.

Also Read: Section 83 BSA: Presumption as to Collections of Laws and Reports of Decisions

However, the format alone does not establish relevance. An electronic document must still satisfy the applicable statutory requirements, and questions of authenticity or proof may need separate consideration.

5. Relevance does not determine the legal interpretation automatically

Section 32 makes qualifying statements of law and reports of rulings relevant. It does not require the court to accept every interpretation suggested by a party.

The court remains responsible for interpreting the applicable law, assessing the material before it and determining the law’s application to the facts.

How Section 32 Applies to Foreign Law

Indian courts may need to determine foreign law in matters involving international commerce, foreign marriages, overseas property, foreign companies or contracts governed by another country’s law.

Section 32 provides a documentary route for considering statements of law in qualifying publications.

For instance, if a dispute concerns the validity of a contract under foreign law, the court may consider an official publication containing the relevant legislation and qualifying reports of rulings by that country’s courts.

The provision should be read alongside the rules governing expert opinion and judicial notice. It does not mean that every issue concerning foreign law can always be resolved merely by producing a law book. Depending on the dispute, expert evidence or additional material may be necessary.

Difference Between Official Law Books and Reports of Court Rulings

Basis	Official law books	Reports of court rulings
Material covered	Statements of the law of a country	Reports of rulings of the courts of that country
Publication requirement	The book must purport to be published under the authority of the relevant country’s government and to contain its law	The book must purport to be a report of those courts’ rulings
Electronic and digital form	Expressly included	Expressly included
Example	An official digital compilation of foreign legislation	A digital law report containing a ruling of a foreign court

The distinction matters because the statutory wording does not impose identical publication requirements on the two categories.

Practical Examples of Section 32 BSA

The following examples illustrate the provision.

Example 1: Official foreign legislation

An Indian court must determine whether a contract is enforceable under the law of another country. A party produces a digital book purporting to contain that country’s legislation and to have been published under the authority of its government.

The statement of law may be relevant under Section 32 if the publication satisfies the statutory requirements.

Principle: Officially published foreign legislation may be relevant when a court must determine the law of another country.

Example 2: Report of a foreign court ruling

A dispute concerns the interpretation of a foreign statutory provision. A party produces a law-report volume containing a ruling of the relevant foreign court.

The report may be relevant under Section 32 if the book purports to report rulings of that country’s courts.

Principle: Qualifying reports of foreign court rulings may help establish the relevant legal position.

Example 3: Electronic foreign law book

A court needs to determine a rule of foreign company law. A party produces an electronic publication purporting to contain the relevant law under the authority of the foreign government.

The electronic form does not prevent the publication from falling within Section 32. The court must still assess whether the statutory requirements are met.

Principle: Section 32 expressly recognises electronic and digital law books.

Example 4: Private legal blog

A party produces a blog post written by a private lawyer summarising the law of another country.

The post does not automatically qualify under Section 32 merely because it discusses foreign law. It may be useful as background material, but the statutory requirements for a qualifying law book or report of court rulings must be considered.

Principle: Not every online explanation of foreign law falls within Section 32.

Example 5: Official publication and legal interpretation

A qualifying official publication contains a foreign statutory provision. The parties disagree about its interpretation and application to their contract.

Section 32 may make the statement of law relevant, but the court must still determine its proper meaning and application.

Principle: Relevance of a source does not eliminate the court’s responsibility to interpret the law.

Important Case Laws on Section 32 BSA

The following authorities concern Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the predecessor provision, or the associated principles governing proof of foreign law. They should not be described as judgments directly interpreting Section 32 BSA.

Also Read: Section 52 BSA: Facts of Which Court Shall Take Judicial Notice

1. The State v. Ramprakash P. Puri, decided on 20 November 1963

Legal principle: The court examined the wording of Section 38 of the former Evidence Act, particularly the expression “law of any country,” and considered the relationship between that provision and the rule that courts take judicial notice of Indian law.

Relevance to Section 32 BSA: The decision helps explain why the provision must be read in conjunction with the statutory rules governing judicial notice and the proof of foreign law. Indian law in force is ordinarily treated differently from foreign law for evidentiary purposes.

2. Christian v. Dellani, (1899) ILR 26 Cal 931

Legal principle: This decision is cited in discussions of Section 38 of the former Evidence Act for the distinction between statements of foreign law published under the authority of the relevant government and material that does not satisfy that requirement.

Relevance to Section 32 BSA: It illustrates the importance of the statutory publication requirement for books containing statements of foreign law.

3. Dhirajlal alias Dhirubhai Babaria v. Navinbhai C. Dave, decided on 29 August 2017

Legal principle: The court discussed the proof and interpretation of foreign law, including the relationship between official legal publications and expert evidence. The judgment emphasises that the court, rather than an expert witness, ultimately determines the meaning and application of the law.

Relevance to Section 32 BSA: The decision helps distinguish the relevance of a source containing foreign law from the judicial task of interpreting that law and applying it to the facts.

These authorities concern the former Evidence Act and related principles. Their application to Section 32 BSA must be assessed in light of the current statutory wording and the facts of the case.

Difference Between Section 31 and Section 32 BSA

Section 31 BSA	Section 32 BSA
Concerns statements about facts of a public nature	Concerns statements about the law of a country
Covers specified legislative recitals and government notifications	Covers qualifying law books and reports of court rulings
Corresponds to Section 37 of the former Evidence Act	Corresponds to Section 38 of the former Evidence Act
Example: a qualifying Gazette notification about a public matter	Example: an official foreign law book or a qualifying report of a foreign court ruling

Section 31 concerns statements about public facts, while Section 32 concerns material relevant to determining the law of a country.

Related Provision: Section 39 BSA

Section 39 BSA concerns the opinions of experts. Expert opinion may be relevant where the court must form an opinion on a point of foreign law.

Section 32 and Section 39 address related but distinct evidentiary routes:

• Section 32: Qualifying books containing statements of law and reports of foreign court rulings are relevant.
• Section 39: Expert opinions on matters including foreign law may be relevant under the statutory requirements.

Depending on the dispute, the court may need to consider official publications, reported rulings, expert evidence or a combination of relevant material.

Corresponding Provision Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The corresponding provision was Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, titled Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law-books.

Both provisions recognise the relevance of statements of law contained in qualifying publications and reports of rulings of the courts of the relevant country.

Section 32 BSA expressly includes electronic and digital forms in its title and text, reflecting the modern availability of official legal publications and law reports in digital formats.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed with effect from 1 July 2024, subject to applicable savings provisions. For proceedings governed by the BSA, the relevant provision is Section 32.

Important Points for Law School and Judiciary Examinations

• Section 32 BSA deals with the relevance of statements of law contained in qualifying law books and reports of foreign court rulings.
• The corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was Section 38.
• The section applies when the court has to form an opinion as to the law of a country.
• A law book must purport to be published under the authority of the relevant country’s government and to contain its law.
• A report of a foreign court ruling must be contained in a book purporting to report those rulings.
• Electronic and digital forms are expressly included.
• The publication requirements for law books and reports of court rulings are not identical.
• Relevance does not automatically determine the interpretation or application of the law.
• Section 39 BSA separately addresses expert opinions, including opinions on foreign law.
• The State v. Ramprakash P. Puri and Christian v. Dellani are relevant to understanding the corresponding provision under the former Evidence Act.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 32 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 32 provides that statements of law in qualifying law books and reports of rulings of the courts of the relevant country are relevant when the court has to form an opinion as to the law of a country.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 32 BSA?

Section 32 BSA corresponds to Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Are electronic law books covered by Section 32 BSA?

Yes. The provision expressly includes electronic and digital forms of qualifying law books and reports of court rulings.

4. Does every website describing foreign law qualify under Section 32?

No. A website or article does not automatically qualify merely because it describes foreign law. The relevant publication must satisfy the statutory requirements for a law book or report of court rulings.

5. Must a report of a foreign court ruling be published under government authority?

The wording of Section 32 distinguishes the two categories. A book containing statements of law must purport to be published under the authority of the relevant country’s government. A report of court rulings must purport to be a report of those rulings; the section does not expressly impose the same government-authority requirement on this second category.

6. Does Section 32 make foreign law conclusive proof?

No. The provision makes qualifying statements of law and reports relevant. The court must still interpret the material and determine its application to the dispute.

7. How does Section 32 differ from Section 39 BSA?

Section 32 concerns qualifying documentary sources containing statements of law and reports of court rulings. Section 39 concerns expert opinions on matters including foreign law.

8. Which cases are relevant to Section 32 BSA?

The State v. Ramprakash P. Puri, decided on 20 November 1963, and Christian v. Dellani, (1899) ILR 26 Cal 931, are relevant to the corresponding provision under the former Evidence Act and the requirements for proving foreign law.

Conclusion

Section 32 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a statutory basis for treating qualifying law books and reports of foreign court rulings as relevant when a court must determine the law of a country. Its express recognition of electronic and digital forms reflects modern methods of accessing legislation and judicial decisions.

The section does not make every online legal resource relevant or automatically settle the interpretation of foreign law. The publication must satisfy the statutory requirements, and the court remains responsible for interpreting and applying the law to the facts.

For law students and judiciary aspirants, the central distinction is between a source being relevant to establish foreign law and the court’s separate responsibility to determine the law’s meaning and application.

dfsad