Section 155

This rule comes from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 152), carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Cross-examination lets lawyers test a witness's honesty and memory, which can involve tough or embarrassing questions. But courts recognized that lawyers could misuse this power to humiliate or intimidate witnesses rather than genuinely seek truth. The provision balances a fair trial's need for tough questioning against a witness's dignity, ensuring courtrooms don't become places for personal attacks.

Indian courts have generally held that this power gives judges discretion to control the manner and tone of cross-examination, not its substance. Judges are expected to distinguish between questions that are harsh but necessary for testing truth, and questions asked only to demean or harass a witness. Courts have emphasized that this discretion should be used carefully so that genuine, searching cross-examination is not curtailed, since that could unfairly protect a witness or hide the truth.

• Myth: This rule means witnesses can refuse to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable.
  Fact: The rule only stops questions meant to insult or that are worded needlessly offensively. Tough, relevant, or embarrassing questions that are genuinely necessary for the case can still be asked and must usually be answered.
• Myth: Judges rarely use this power, so it doesn't matter in practice.
  Fact: Courts have repeatedly relied on this provision to control cross-examination, especially to protect vulnerable witnesses like survivors of sexual assault from irrelevant, humiliating questioning.