Some questions call for expert scientists; others call for people who simply know a community from the inside. Section 43 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) belongs to the second category. It admits the opinion of persons with special knowledge on three specific subjects that no laboratory can settle — the usages and tenets of a group of people or a family, the constitution and governance of a religious or charitable foundation, and the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people.
43. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant. When the Court has to form an opinion as to—
(i) the usages and tenets of any body of men or family;
(ii) the constitution and governance of any religious or charitable foundation; or
(iii) the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people,
the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are relevant facts.
Section 43 corresponds to Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records that the paragraphs of Section 49 IEA have been numbered as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) — a drafting refinement to improve readability. The substance is identical.
Three windows onto community life
Each clause covers a different kind of fact that is proved not by documents alone but by the testimony of those who live within the community, congregation, or district in question.
Who counts as a person with "special means of knowledge"
The section admits opinions only from those having "special means of knowledge thereon". The threshold is proximity to the subject, not academic qualification. On the usages of a community, a long-time member, a caste elder, or a religious teacher may qualify; on the governance of a foundation, an office-bearer, trustee, or long-serving priest; on local dialect meanings, a person from the district or trade with sustained everyday exposure. A witness who has only read about the community, without living within it, will not usually satisfy this threshold. The court will look to duration, depth, and continuity of the witness's contact with the subject before assigning weight.
The drafting improvement
Section 49 IEA presented its three subjects as a single unbroken block of prose. Section 43 BSA breaks them out as clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). Nothing was added and nothing was taken away; the change is purely presentational. It matters, though, because the three subjects are conceptually distinct, and separating them helps counsel and courts pinpoint which limb of Section 43 is being invoked in a given case.
| Feature | Section 49, IEA | Section 43, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Single paragraph | Three numbered clauses (i)–(iii) |
| Subjects covered | Usages/tenets, constitution/governance of foundations, meaning of terms | Identical |
| Class of witness | Persons having special means of knowledge | Identical |
Application in practice
Section 43 is a workhorse in disputes that turn on unwritten community facts — succession according to customary law, questions of religious office, trust administration, and the interpretation of local trade documents. In succession disputes, evidence from senior community members about the group's inheritance customs is regularly received under clause (i). In temple- or trust-management disputes, evidence from long-serving administrators about the constitution and running of the foundation falls under clause (ii). In contract disputes centred on trade terms of a particular region or industry, evidence from experienced traders on the meaning of those terms falls under clause (iii).
The section also has a role in evolving areas. As courts increasingly deal with disputes involving new religious movements, hybrid trusts, and specialised professional communities, Section 43 provides a stable route for admitting the opinions of participants whose knowledge cannot be replicated by outsiders. What matters, in every case, is that the witness has demonstrable "special means of knowledge" — not that the subject is old or the community small.
Why the community-insider rule matters
A general expert on customary law can describe patterns across communities, but only a person embedded in the specific community can speak to what this community actually does. Section 43 recognises that difference. It allows the court to hear from the people whose life is the subject of the enquiry, rather than forcing every question to be routed through outside academics whose knowledge is inevitably second-hand. In matters of religious governance, this often means calling long-serving trustees, priests, or administrators; in customary succession disputes, it may mean calling senior members of the caste or panchayat; in trade-usage cases, it may mean calling merchants who have practised in the particular market for decades. What unites these witnesses is not any formal qualification but the depth and duration of their exposure to the specific milieu the court has to understand.
Cross-examination under this section typically probes exactly that exposure — how long the witness has held the position or lived in the community, in what capacity, and whether their knowledge is direct or borrowed. A well-founded witness with genuine special means of knowledge carries significant weight; a witness whose foundation is thin will be given correspondingly little. The section thus rewards preparation on both sides: for the party leading the evidence, laying a full foundation for the witness's knowledge is as important as the opinion itself.
Key Takeaways
- Three defined subjects: usages and tenets; constitution and governance of religious or charitable foundations; meaning of words in particular districts or classes.
- Only persons with special means of knowledge: proximity and sustained contact matter, not academic credentials.
- Numbering added, substance unchanged: BSA restructures Section 49 IEA as clauses (i)–(iii) without altering it.
- Works with Section 45: grounds of the opinion are admissible alongside the opinion itself.
- Broad practical reach: customary succession, religious/charitable governance, and trade or dialect vocabulary all fall within it.
Conclusion
Section 43 acknowledges that not every fact worth proving lives in a book or database. The usages of a community, the governance of a religious institution, and the meaning of specialised local terms are facts, but they exist in lived practice — and only those who have lived that practice can speak to them reliably. By making their opinions relevant, and by newly breaking the three subjects into readable clauses, Section 43 keeps a century-and-a-half-old rule properly available to the modern courtroom. It complements Section 42 (which deals with general customs and rights) and Section 44 (which deals with relationship), together giving the BSA a coherent framework for community-anchored proof.