Section 43

Indian society has enormous diversity in customs, religious institutions, and regional or community language. Courts often cannot decide disputes—such as inheritance following family custom, control of a temple or trust, or the meaning of a local term in a contract—without help from people who understand these specialised matters. This provision, carried forward from Section 48 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ensures such informed opinions can be placed before the court as relevant evidence, rather than being excluded merely because they are 'opinions' rather than direct facts.

Courts have long treated this provision as an exception to the general rule that opinion evidence is usually irrelevant, allowing witnesses with genuine special knowledge—such as heads of a family, community elders, or trustees—to testify on customs, institutional governance, or local word meanings. Judgments have emphasised that the witness must actually possess special means of knowledge, not just a general familiarity, and that such opinion evidence supplements but does not replace documentary or direct proof where available.

• Myth: Anyone can give their opinion on customs or word meanings, and courts must accept it.
  Fact: Only people with genuine special knowledge or experience of the specific custom, institution, or usage qualify; courts assess the credibility and basis of their opinion.
• Myth: This section allows opinions on any topic in place of facts.
  Fact: It only applies to the specific situations listed: usages/tenets of a group or family, governance of religious/charitable institutions, and local or class-specific word meanings.