Introduction
Cross-examination is supposed to test a witness's account, not humiliate the person giving it. But the line between rigorous questioning and gratuitous cruelty is not always obvious in the moment — and when a judge fails to draw it, the consequences fall hardest on the most vulnerable witnesses, particularly survivors of sexual violence testifying about the worst experience of their lives.
Section 155 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), in Chapter X ("Of the Examination of Witnesses"), is one of the shortest provisions in this part of the Act, but it imposes one of the clearest obligations on a trial judge: forbid questions meant to insult or annoy a witness. Unlike its immediate neighbour, this is not discretionary. This article explains why that distinction matters, how Indian courts have applied this duty in practice, and what it means for anyone conducting or defending against cross-examination.
155. Questions intended to insult or annoy.
The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.
Section 155 Explained: A Mandatory Duty, Not a Discretionary Power
The word carrying the entire weight of this section is "shall." Where the immediately preceding provision — Section 154, on indecent and scandalous questions — gives the Court a discretionary power ("the Court may forbid"), Section 155 imposes an obligation. If a question meets either of the two conditions the section describes, the Court is not merely entitled to intervene; it is required to.
Those two conditions are themselves distinct. The first targets purpose: a question genuinely intended to insult or annoy the witness, regardless of how it is phrased. The second targets form independently of intent: a question that may be entirely proper and relevant in substance, but is phrased in a needlessly offensive way. A lawyer does not need to prove bad motive to trigger the second branch — a legitimate question asked in a gratuitously humiliating manner is enough on its own.
Two Ways a Question Can Fall Foul of Section 155
This second branch is the more practically important one, because it does not require the Court to divine a cross-examiner's private motive. A judge does not need to find that counsel intended cruelty; it is enough that the question, as phrased, is needlessly offensive when a less offensive phrasing would have served the same legitimate purpose.
Where This Duty Matters Most: Protecting Vulnerable Witnesses
Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised that this provision, together with the discretionary power in the preceding section, is not a background technicality — it is an active judicial duty that matters most in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, and above all in trials for sexual offences. The Bombay High Court has held that the dignity of a rape survivor giving evidence must be upheld, and that it is a trial judge's duty to forbid scandalous or needlessly offensive questions during her cross-examination, rather than allowing the defence unlimited latitude in how questions are phrased.
Courts have gone further, holding that a trial judge who fails to invoke these protections — stopping degrading lines of questioning and reminding a witness she cannot be compelled to answer certain questions — has failed in a basic judicial duty, not merely declined to exercise an optional courtesy. This reframes Section 155 from a rule about courtroom etiquette into a substantive protection woven into how sensitive trials are meant to be conducted.
Worked Example: Same Substance, Different Form
Consider a cross-examiner testing a witness's timeline by asking pointed, specific questions about exactly where they were and what they were doing at a given hour — a legitimate line of inquiry going to the reliability of their account. Now compare that to the same substantive point delivered through mocking, derisive language designed to humiliate the witness rather than simply test their memory.
Section 155 vs. Section 154: Mandatory vs. Discretionary Protection
Sections 154 and 155 work as a pair, and the difference between them is worth holding onto precisely because it is easy to blur in practice.
| Feature | Section 154 | Section 155 |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | "May forbid" — discretionary | "Shall forbid" — mandatory |
| Target | Indecent or scandalous questions/inquiries | Questions intended to insult/annoy, or needlessly offensive in form |
| Exception | Permitted if relating to facts in issue | No stated exception — the duty is unqualified |
The absence of any exception in Section 155 is deliberate. Even a question relating to genuine facts in issue must still be forbidden if it is needlessly offensive in form — the Court's duty here is not weighed against relevance the way Section 154's discretion is.
Section 155 BSA vs. Section 152 IEA: The Rule Is Unchanged
Section 155 corresponds to Section 152 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), carried forward without change, including the mandatory "shall forbid" language and the two-branch structure.
| Element | IEA, 1872 (Section 152) | BSA, 2023 (Section 155) |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory duty to forbid | Present | Unchanged |
| Purpose and form branches | Both present | Unchanged |
Because the text is identical, judicial guidance developed under Section 152 IEA — including the case law on protecting vulnerable witnesses discussed above — applies with full force to Section 155 BSA proceedings.
Who Section 155 Actually Affects
- Trial judges carry an active, mandatory duty to intervene the moment a question meets either condition — this is not something they may choose to overlook.
- Vulnerable witnesses, particularly survivors of sexual violence, benefit from this protection most acutely, and courts have treated its enforcement as central to preserving their dignity during testimony.
- Cross-examining counsel must think carefully not just about what they ask but how they phrase it — a substantively fair question can still be forbidden if its form is needlessly offensive.
- Prosecutors and victim's counsel can invoke Section 155 proactively, without waiting for the defence to cross a line first, since the Court's duty exists independent of objection.
- Appellate courts reviewing a trial's fairness will scrutinise whether the presiding judge actively exercised this mandatory duty, especially in cases involving sensitive testimony.
Key Takeaways
- The duty is mandatory, not discretionary: "shall forbid" leaves the Court no room to simply let an offensive question pass.
- Purpose and form are independently sufficient: a question can violate Section 155 through bad intent, through needlessly offensive phrasing, or both.
- There is no relevance exception: unlike Section 154, even a question bearing on genuine facts in issue must still be forbidden if it is needlessly offensive in form.
- Courts treat this as central to protecting vulnerable witnesses: Indian case law frames active enforcement of Section 155 as essential to preserving a survivor's dignity during cross-examination.
- The rule is unchanged from 1872: Section 155 BSA carries forward Section 152 IEA without substantive modification.
Conclusion
Section 155 is short, but it draws a firm, mandatory line between rigorous cross-examination and gratuitous cruelty — and unlike much of the surrounding chapter, it leaves the Court no discretion to look away. In cases involving the most vulnerable witnesses, that mandatory character is not a technicality; Indian courts have treated it as central to whether a trial was conducted with the dignity the law requires.
For counsel, the practical discipline the section demands is simple: ask the hard question if it is genuinely necessary, but ask it in a way that does its job without needless cruelty — because Section 155 gives the Court no choice but to intervene the moment that line is crossed.