Question

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is not applicable in which case?

• A. National Company Law Tribunal
• B. Arbitral Tribunal
• C. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
• D. National Green Tribunal

Hint:

Whenever you see "Arbitration", think "flexibility". Arbitral tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence that govern ordinary courts.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Concept: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is the successor legislation to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It lays down rules regarding admissibility, relevancy, and proof of facts before courts and judicial proceedings. However, not every adjudicatory body is strictly governed by the law of evidence. Certain forums are given procedural flexibility to ensure speedy and efficient dispute resolution.

Step 1: Purpose of evidence law.
Evidence law regulates:

• What facts may be proved.

• How facts may be proved.

• What documents are admissible.

• The burden and standard of proof.
Ordinarily, courts and many statutory tribunals follow these principles while deciding disputes.

Step 2: Special nature of arbitration.
Arbitration is fundamentally different from ordinary court proceedings. It is based upon:

• Party autonomy.

• Contractual consent.

• Procedural flexibility.

• Speedy dispute resolution.
To preserve these advantages, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically provides that arbitral tribunals are not bound by the strict provisions of the law of evidence.

Step 3: Effect of non-applicability.
This does not mean that arbitrators can act arbitrarily. Instead, they may:

• Consider documents that might not strictly satisfy evidentiary rules.

• Adopt flexible procedures agreed upon by the parties.

• Determine admissibility and weight of evidence without being constrained by technical rules.
This flexibility is intended to make arbitration more efficient than conventional litigation.

Step 4: Why the other options are incorrect.
Bodies such as:

• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),

• National Green Tribunal (NGT),
exercise statutory adjudicatory functions and generally apply evidentiary principles while deciding disputes. The specific exemption recognized by law is for arbitral tribunals.

Conclusion: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam does not strictly apply to arbitral proceedings because arbitration is designed to function with procedural flexibility and party autonomy. \[ \boxed{\text{Arbitral Tribunal}} \]

Answer 2

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 generally governs how facts may be proved before courts and many statutory tribunals, but arbitration is deliberately built on party autonomy and procedural flexibility, which is why the question asks which forum stands outside the ordinary reach of evidence law.

1. National Company Law Tribunal: the NCLT exercises statutory adjudicatory powers over company law disputes and generally applies established evidentiary principles when deciding matters before it, so the evidence law is not excluded here.
2. Arbitral Tribunal: the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 expressly frees an arbitral tribunal from being bound by the strict rules found in evidence legislation, allowing the tribunal to adopt flexible procedures agreed by the parties and to weigh material without being tied to technical admissibility rules. This is precisely the exemption the question is pointing to.
3. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: as a statutory tribunal deciding tax disputes, the ITAT ordinarily proceeds along lines that respect evidentiary principles regarding proof of facts, and no comparable blanket exemption from evidence law applies to it.
4. National Green Tribunal: similarly, the NGT is a statutory adjudicatory body that follows evidentiary principles in assessing environmental disputes, and evidence law is not disapplied to it in the way it is to arbitration.

Among the four forums listed, only the arbitral tribunal has a specific statutory basis for operating outside the strict framework of evidence law, because arbitration's entire design rests on flexibility and the parties' own choices rather than on formal court-style proof.

Therefore, the correct answer is Arbitral Tribunal.