Question

Which of the following does not fall under the framework of presumption under Section 2 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

• A. Conclusive proof
• B. Unassailable proof
• C. May be
• D. Shall presume

Hint:

Memorize the three technical expressions used in evidence law: May Presume, Shall Presume, and Conclusive Proof. Any alternative wording is usually a distractor in objective examinations.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

A good way to work through this is to think about why the law needs three separate categories of presumption in the first place, and then see which option does not serve any of those purposes.

1. Conclusive proof: This category exists for situations where the legislature wants total certainty and finality, so it shuts the door on any rebuttal once the foundational fact is shown. This clearly serves a real, defined function in the Act.
2. Shall presume: This category exists to shift the burden onto the party who wants to disprove a fact, while still allowing that party a genuine chance to rebut it with evidence. This too serves a distinct, defined function.
3. May be (may presume): This category exists to give the court flexibility in weaker or more circumstantial situations, letting the judge decide whether the fact is proved or whether more evidence is needed. This is the most discretionary of the three tiers but still a recognised one.
4. Unassailable proof: There is no functional gap in the Act that this phrase is meant to fill, because the three tiers above already cover every degree of certainty the legislature intended to create. The word simply does not correspond to any operative rule in the statute.

Since the Act's presumption framework is built entirely out of the three functions described above, and unassailable proof performs none of them, it is the term that falls outside the framework.

So the correct answer is Unassailable proof.

Answer 2

Since the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872 while keeping the substance of many interpretation provisions intact, comparing the two laws is a reliable way to check each option here.

1. Conclusive proof: The predecessor law used precisely this expression to describe facts that a court must treat as finally settled once the foundational fact is established, and the new Act has carried the same expression forward unchanged. It is a genuine part of the framework.
2. Unassailable proof: Neither the earlier evidence law nor the current Act has ever used this expression to describe a category of presumption. It has no textual ancestry in Indian evidence legislation at all, which is a strong indication that it does not belong in the framework being tested here.
3. May be (may presume): The earlier law used may presume to describe a discretionary presumption, and the current Act preserves this exact category, so this option is a genuine part of the framework.
4. Shall presume: The earlier law also used shall presume for a mandatory but rebuttable presumption, and this category has likewise carried over into the current Act unchanged.

Comparing the statutory language across both the old and new evidence laws shows that three of the four options are longstanding, continuing categories, while the fourth has never existed in the statute.

Accordingly, the correct answer is Unassailable proof.