सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 21

Admissions in civil cases when relevant

In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given. Explanation.—Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any advocate from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 132.

Why this exists

This rule protects honest, open settlement negotiations. If every offer to compromise or every admission made 'without prejudice' during talks could later be used against a person in court, people would never speak frankly to resolve disputes out of court. Indian law inherited this principle from English common law, and it was carried forward from Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 into Section 21 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 with the same purpose: to encourage settlement rather than punish honesty.

How courts read it

Courts under the earlier Evidence Act (Section 23) consistently held that the protection applies only to genuine settlement negotiations, not to every private conversation. Judges look at whether there was an express 'without prejudice' condition or clear circumstances showing both parties intended confidentiality. Courts have also clarified that this protection does not let a lawyer refuse to testify about facts they are otherwise legally bound to disclose (linked to Section 132, covering professional communications).

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Anything said during out-of-court settlement talks can never be used in any legal proceeding.
    Fact: Only admissions made under an express or clearly understood 'without prejudice' condition are protected — casual conversations or unrelated statements can still be used as evidence.
  • Myth: This rule lets lawyers refuse to answer questions in court about anything they discussed with clients.
    Fact: The Explanation makes clear that lawyers must still testify about matters they are legally required to disclose under Section 132(1) and (2).