Section 54

This rule continues a principle from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (earlier Section 59), reflecting the 'best evidence rule.' The logic is simple: if a document exists, the document itself (or properly admitted secondary evidence, in specific situations) is the most reliable proof of what it says. Allowing someone to just orally claim 'the contract said X' would invite memory errors, exaggeration, or fraud, since documents can be produced and examined directly, while oral claims about their contents cannot be independently verified in the same way.

Under the predecessor provision (Section 59 of the Evidence Act, 1872), courts consistently held that this rule works together with the sections on primary and secondary evidence of documents. Judges have explained that a witness may testify orally about events, conversations, or actions, but if the question is 'what did the document say,' the document itself (or valid secondary evidence like a certified copy, when the original is unavailable) must be produced — oral recollection of its contents is not a substitute. This distinction has been applied in property, contract, and criminal cases where parties tried to prove terms of agreements or written statements purely through witness memory.

• Myth: Oral evidence can be used to prove absolutely everything, including what a written contract or letter says.
  Fact: This provision specifically excludes proving the contents of documents through oral evidence; that must be done through the document itself or legally recognized secondary evidence.
• Myth: If a witness clearly remembers a document's wording, their oral account is just as good as the document.
  Fact: Courts have treated the document as the primary proof of its own contents, since memory can be faulty or manipulated, whereas the paper can be directly inspected.