The judge can ask absolutely anything, with no limits at all.

The judge cannot ask improper questions (barred under sections 151 or 152) or force disclosure of privileged information protected under sections 127–136.

If the judge asks a witness something, either side can immediately cross-examine on that answer.

Cross-examination on the judge's own questions is only allowed if the court specifically gives permission.

Because the judge can ask questions, the final verdict can be based on whatever comes up in that conversation.

The judgment must still be based only on facts declared relevant by law and duly proved — the judge's questioning doesn't bypass this requirement.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 168

Judge’s power to put questions or order production

The Judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their representatives shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Adhiniyam to be relevant, and duly proved: Provided further that this section shall not authorise any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 127 to 136, both inclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other§

person to ask under section 151 or 152; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.§

Why this exists

India's evidence law traditionally treats the judge as more than a passive referee between two sides; the judge can actively question witnesses to get to the truth, a power inherited from Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This reflects a hybrid approach — adversarial in structure but allowing inquisitorial intervention — so that truth-finding isn't left entirely to the parties' strategies. At the same time, the drafters built in safeguards so this power doesn't override the basic rules about what counts as evidence, or strip witnesses of protections like privilege.

How courts read it

Under the predecessor provision (Section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872), the Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (1981) held that a judge must actively use this power to elicit truth, especially where witnesses turn hostile, but must not step into the shoes of a prosecutor or lose judicial neutrality. Courts have repeatedly stressed that this power exists to serve justice, not to help one side. Since the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is new legislation carrying forward the same wording almost verbatim, courts are expected to continue relying on this established line of interpretation, though no distinct Supreme Court ruling on Section 168 itself exists yet.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The judge can ask absolutely anything, with no limits at all.
Fact: The judge cannot ask improper questions (barred under sections 151 or 152) or force disclosure of privileged information protected under sections 127–136.
Myth: If the judge asks a witness something, either side can immediately cross-examine on that answer.
Fact: Cross-examination on the judge's own questions is only allowed if the court specifically gives permission.
Myth: Because the judge can ask questions, the final verdict can be based on whatever comes up in that conversation.
Fact: The judgment must still be based only on facts declared relevant by law and duly proved — the judge's questioning doesn't bypass this requirement.