Judgments do their most powerful evidentiary work within the case they conclude. Once a case is over, whether the judgment can be tendered as evidence in another case is a much narrower question. Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) map out the situations in which a previous judgment is relevant in a later proceeding. Section 37 then draws the line: every other judgment is irrelevant, unless its very existence is a fact in issue or it is made relevant under some other provision of the Adhiniyam.
37. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant. Judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.
Illustrations.
(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.
(b) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
(c) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.
(d) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 6 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.
Section 37 reproduces Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) without any change in wording. The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records "No change." Its role in the judgment-relevancy cluster is the residual one — it captures everything left over after Sections 34 to 36 have done their work.
The default and its two escape routes
The default rule is exclusion. Judgments in other cases are irrelevant when the question in the current case is whether the facts said to have been decided in those cases are true. Otherwise, a party could smuggle in disputed factual findings from any past decree, and the current trial would be conducted at second hand. Section 37 forecloses that by making such judgments irrelevant unless one of two escape routes is opened.
The five illustrations, read as a set
The five illustrations to Section 37 do more than provide examples — together they map exactly when the section excludes a judgment and when the escape routes open.
| Illus. | Situation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | A's libel decree against C tendered in B's separate libel suit against C | Irrelevant as between B and C — A's decree cannot prove the same words defamed B |
| (b) | A's criminal conviction of B for cow-theft tendered in A's later civil suit against C, who bought the cow from B before conviction | Irrelevant as between A and C — the criminal judgment does not decide the civil title question |
| (c) | A's possession decree against B tendered in the prosecution of C (B's son) for A's murder | Relevant to show motive for the crime — its existence is a fact bearing on the killing |
| (d) | Previous theft conviction of A in prosecution charging repeat theft with prior conviction | Relevant — the previous conviction is itself a fact in issue in the current charge |
| (e) | Prior libel prosecution of A by B (in which A was convicted) tendered in A's trial for B's murder | Relevant under Section 6 — the earlier prosecution shows motive for the murder |
Illustrations (a) and (b) illustrate the default — decrees on unrelated causes of action between different parties do no evidentiary work in the new suit. Illustrations (c), (d) and (e) illustrate the two escape routes — the existence of the judgment being a fact in issue (d) or its existence being relevant under another provision (c, e).
Placement within Chapter II's judgment cluster
Section 37 completes the four-section framework on previous judgments. Section 34 bars a second suit or trial where a prior judgment does so by law. Section 35 makes certain probate, matrimonial, admiralty, and insolvency judgments conclusive proof of specified matters. Section 36 lets public-nature judgments other than those in Section 35 be relevant, though not conclusive. Section 37 is the residual rule — all other judgments are out unless their existence is a fact in issue or is relevant under another provision. Section 38 then adds the safety valve that admissibility under any of Sections 34 to 36 may be defeated by proof of fraud, collusion, or incompetence of the earlier court.
Why the residual rule matters
Without Section 37, an aggressive litigant could parade every past decree the opposing party has ever been involved in as evidence against them. The section prevents that. It insists that if a party wants to use a past judgment in a new proceeding, they must fit the case into either one of the specific admissibility routes in Sections 34 to 36 or into the "fact in issue / other provision" escape routes in Section 37 itself. That discipline keeps trials focused on the evidence between the parties before the court — not on the litigation history around them.
Key Takeaways
- The residual default is exclusion: judgments other than those in Sections 34–36 are irrelevant.
- Two escape routes: the judgment's existence is a fact in issue, or it is relevant under some other BSA provision.
- Illustrations map the line: (a) and (b) are excluded; (c), (d), and (e) are admitted via one of the escape routes.
- Existence, not truth: even when admitted through an escape route, the section generally admits the judgment's existence, not its findings as substantive proof.
- Unchanged from Section 43 IEA: the recodification preserved the provision verbatim.
Conclusion
Section 37 is the section that keeps the judgment-relevancy cluster tightly controlled. By declaring that judgments outside the defined admissibility routes are irrelevant, and by opening only two carefully worded escape routes, it prevents the past litigation of the parties from taking over the present trial. Its five illustrations remain among the clearest teaching examples in Indian evidence law, and its carry-over from Section 43 IEA without change reflects how well the rule has held up over 150 years of application.