सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 152

Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds

Why this exists

This provision balances the right to test a witness's credibility through cross-examination against the risk of lawyers using humiliating, baseless questions merely to intimidate or discredit witnesses. It continues a rule from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 150), reflecting long-standing common law concern that cross-examination should not become a tool for character assassination without any factual basis.

How courts read it

Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (Section 150 of the Evidence Act, 1872), have consistently held that advocates must have some material — even secondhand information verified for plausibility — before asking degrading questions, and that judges have discretion to disallow questions asked in bad faith or without foundation.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: A lawyer can ask any humiliating question about a witness as long as it might reveal the truth.
    Fact: The law requires the lawyer to first have reasonable grounds — some credible information or behavior — before asking such a question.
  • Myth: Only direct proof counts as a 'reasonable ground.'
    Fact: As shown in the illustrations, secondhand information (verified for credibility) or even a witness's own suspicious answers can count as reasonable grounds.