THE ROLE OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASES BY - RUCHIR SALUJA
THE
ROLE OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASES
AUTHORED BY - RUCHIR SALUJA
INTRODUCTION
Often
times during legal proceedings there are situations where the judge might not
have the complex and technical knowledge to comprehend a few facts or the
entire premise of the facts, this is where someone with the required knowledge
and skills is needed to interpret the facts for the court and aid in
specialized areas, these are called as expert witnesses.
An expert witness, as the name suggests is one distinguished individual holding
technical and complex understanding of one or more specialized fields, with
which the judge is not too familiar with.
These witnesses are called upon by the court to provide their knowledge and
expertise of the field to assist the court with its proceedings, these
complexities are bound to arise as a judge is not assumed to be a technical
know – how in every possible filed where an issue may arise.
Each
party considering the case, selects an expert witness of their own choice and
they are provided with some consideration for the same.
The court makes sure the “experts” are actually distinguished in their fields,
which is evident by observing their contributions in the case, relevant
pointers and actual problem – solving skills regarding complexities.
Based on these the court also decides whether one is qualified for the position
or not.
INTERPRETAION OF STATUTES
The
most crucial and key basis of the judiciary is interpretation, the court
interprets the legislation during its proceedings, this interpretation of
legislation is termed as statutory interpretation.
The legislative makes the legislation and the judiciary interprets it, often
times in India and other countries the legislation has a considerable amount of
ambiguity with it, which must be solved by the judiciary.
To find the true meaning or the intent behind the framework of a particular
legislation, the judges use various methods, which are – Purposivism and Textualism.
Purposivism
This
theory of interpretation argues that the judges must interpret the legislation
keeping in the mind the actual intent and the purpose that the lawmakers or the
legislative had while framing the law,
the courts must try to stay in tune with the intention of the legislative
behind the law and not merely read the legislation as ordinary text.
Two
of the most influential purposivist writers were in 1950s, Henry Hart and
Albert Sacks,
they argued to the courts that they must presume the duty of the legislative
and consider them as reasonable people trying to achieve a reasonable goal.
The basis of this argument was since the Constitution gives power to the
Congress to make laws the courts need to always consider the same while
interpretation of any statute.
This
also protects the identity of the legislative as this is its duty conferred
upon it by the Constitution and thus,
it is important for the courts to observe as to how and with what intent does
the Congress frames its laws.
Every
theory has its fair share of criticisms and the critics of Purposivism argue
that the same intention behind the making of the legislation is rare, it is not
possible for the judges to have the same intention as the Legislature because
of the circumstances of issues it deals with,
the judges are not suited with the complexities the legislature goes through
while finalising or making a bill, and the legislative history is often
contradictory, which can cause confusion in the clarification of law.
Textualism
These
argue that the judges must interpret the words of the legislation as a mere
member of the legislature,
believing that such meaning is how one would reasonably derive it from the
language of the legislation as prescribed to them in the legal rules.
But
the modern times, have textualists as people who argue that the legislation
should be read and interpreted by the judges in the same manner as of a well –
informed ordinary person,
therefore they contend that the law is what is written, and must be interpreted
in such a manner.
Judge Frank Easterbrook, stated that the statutes are not words of private
language but public documents which are negotiated and approved by many
different individuals,
it focuses on the final wording because that is the final product by the
legislature that emerged from the power to enact laws.
Similarly,
textualism has its critics which argue that, this way of interpretation is very
rigid and takes away the power of the courts to interpret the law, as the mere
understanding of each word can’t be justified as its correct interpretation.
One
other theory of interpretation is called as Originalism,
which stated that the judges should try to interpret the legislation keeping in
mind the original intent as to when the legislation was being drafted and not
the final purpose the legislature wanted to achieve by the same.
EXPERT EVIDENCE AS AN AID TO
INTERPRETATION
After
going through these concepts, we can make the relation of role of expert witnesses
in statutory interpretation cases, which is that in some cases when the facts
might be technical or complex for the judges, an expert can aid the court in
understanding the facts and the courts can effectively proceed with the
interpretation without having any dissatisfaction.
A judgement where the role of an “expert” was explained by the court will be
discussed to further understand these concepts together.
In
Bal Krishna Das Agarwal v. Radha Devi
an “expert” was said to be, as a person who has developed the ability to convey
or make an opinion because of his/her knowledge and competence in the
particular field,
this is a feature which an ordinary witness does not possess and the expert’s
testimony is founded on knowledge and experience.
According to Section 45
of the Evidence Act, it is important that before a person may be referred
to as an expert, there must be a proof of his competence in the field he is
giving his opinion in and also for the specific insight he will deliver to the
court, he must have had an in – depth research on the topic and must have some
significant insight in it.
Under
the Evidence Act now Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 39
talks about the opinion of experts - (1) When the Court has to form an opinion
upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to
identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of
persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or any other
field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are
relevant facts and such persons are called experts.
ROLE OF AN EXPERT IN COMPLEX CASES
A
good judgement relating to when the court requires an expert witness to proceed
with its interpretation is given here –
Aabid
Khan v. Dinesh and Others
In
this case the claimant had sustained serious injuries in his left rib, to be
more precise he had a compound fracture in his left rib,
the doctor who had examined the claimant had claimed that the entire damage to
his body would make the compensation be around 17% and was also said in the
cross – examination, but the Tribunal court computed the total compensation at
10%, they did not deliver a reasonable reason for this decision and thus,
this was challenged in the appeal, that the court cannot ignore the fact of an
“expert” and cannot change the decided compensation from 17% to 10%, they
contended this to be a flaw by the Tribunal.
Here
the expert opinion is very crucial as the final compensation must be decided
with due caution and evidence for the same, as the claimant didn’t earn very
good.
This
is a good judgement to analyse how expert witnesses have a crucial role in the
statutory interpretation cases, because an expert’s opinion is very strong and
crucial to carry forward the proceedings.
In
Sri Chand Batra v. State of U.P.,
in this case the Excise Inspector was assigned as the expert witness because of
his knowledge and experience in the particular field,
he had 21 years of experience and had tested lakhs of different samples, and it
was deemed admissible under Section 45 of the Act
, the opinion was allowed by the court because of his high involvement in this
field.
While
the smelling test and other circumstances were being observed by the court the
participation of the expert witness was very important in determining if or not
the recovered liquor was illicit liquor.
His expertise made him capable to assess the nature of the liquid, based on the
colour, smell, taste, and physical properties.
The
liquor in this particular case was a very uncommon illicit liquor which is not
something the judges are equipped with,
the knowledge in particular and therefore, it was important to have an expert
for the same.
The appellant had challenged the admissibility in the court but the High Court
upheld the admissibility because of the relevance in his testimony and his
training and experience in the field.
This case shows the importance and the credibility that an expert’s opinion
holds in the court of law.
Without
the presence of an expert in this case, the interpretation for the same
would be a task for the judges, as they are not assumed to be familiar with
every field.
An
example – in a medical negligence case, an expert doctor in the same
specialization is called upon to aid in the procedure of a safe treatment,
through which the liability of the accused is decided upon and it interprets
the statutory provisions for the judges to proceed with the same.
SUGGESTIONS
A
PERSONAL ANALYSIS OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
After
researching on the role od expert witnesses, one may infer that with the aid of
an expert by the judiciary, it creates a significant and possible potential of
bias by the judge. A judge in this case is not a specialist in the field and
the major contributions made by the experts in their fields might make the
judge prone to accept or believe the arguments made by the expert, as this is
something which comes from a reputable and reliable source.
A
judgement where the same was contested by one of the parties will be discussed
now, to take the discussion further as to how an expert witness might be a bane
for the independence of judiciary.
Natasha
Singh v. CBI, in this case the piece of evidence against
the petitioner was a forensic report of a handwriting expert, who had claimed
that the writing matched the forged documents and upon which the trial court
had convicted him.
The petitioner argued that the expert had some bias as he was being paid by the
accused, and his testimony was easily relied onto by the court.
The
petitioner had accused the expert for being biased in favour of the prosecution
and the testimony is not reliable,
the petitioner in the appeal contends that the bias shown by the expert in this
case violated the principles of a due and fair trial.
This was then taken up by the court to examine whether or not the reliance on
one expert’s testimony leads to a legal error and in the due process of the
trial.
The
court rejected the plea, as the petitioner had ample time to cross examine the
expert and it was not right to accuse an expert in the appeal.
But the court also stated facts relating to the role of expert witnesses in the
court of law.
The
court stated that the role of these experts in such cases is only “advisory” in
nature, and it’s the judge’s final decision which is leads the case.
The expert presents its findings and its knowledge to such complex areas but,
he is not the judge.
It Is the duty of the judge to frame its own decision without relying on the
opinion of the expert.
Although
the court did not find any role of bias in this case, the need to state the
facts shows the high possibility of a judge getting influenced or prone to the
opinion or finding presented by the experts in any such case.
The
case shows us that there is a significant need of experts in some complex
factual questions or technical cases, where the judge is not familiar with the
day-to-day activities of the same, but at the same time this aid is only
advisory in nature for the courts.
This provision protects the independence of judiciary as well as the
opportunity to ensure a free and fair trial.
CONCLUSION
The
role of an expert witness in the interpretation of statues is essential as,
there are many cases in which the judge may not be familiar with the
intricacies of the particular field and might require an expert’ opinion, this
opinion aids the judge in making a fair decision after being informed of the
complexities, but this aid is only in an advisory nature. The judge is not
bound by the opinion delivered by the expert, it is still the judge’s final
decision that is given some clarity by the expert.
This
paper discussed many cases regarding the importance of the expert in a
particular case to proceed with the interpretation of the statute by the court,
it also discusses a case where this role was accused for bias and partiality,
which further gave path to the possibility of the judiciary being influenced by
the expert’s opinion and the reliance on this opinion.
There
are also cases where the court cannot interpret the facts or the case without
an expert as, that might be the most crucial aspect of the case, therefore, the
role of an expert witness holds a lot of significance but at the same time, it
is not the judge and only an advisory body
Although
there may exist a legal issue in the role of expert witnesses, the Courts have
always held that the final decision is up to the judge and there must be less
reliance on having an expert’s opinion in every case, this protects the
independence of judiciary and increases the presumption of a fair and free
procedure by the law.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Government
report:
