Previous good character of a person accused in criminal proceedings is recognised as a relevant fact. The relevance applies to the accused person's good character in a criminal case, permitting that character circumstance to be considered among facts relevant to issues arising in proceedings under the evidentiary framework governing criminal matters.

Character evidence in civil cases is irrelevant when tendered solely to show that a person was likely or unlikely to have engaged in conduct imputed to that person. Such character may be considered only to the extent that it emerges from facts independently relevant to the issues. The rule prevents character from serving as standalone proof of alleged conduct.

Where the opinion of a living person is relevant, the grounds on which that opinion rests are also relevant. This permits proof of the factual, technical, or experiential basis used to form an admissible opinion, enabling assessment of its reliability and evidentiary value. An expert may describe experiments performed for the purpose of forming the expert opinion.

Relationship opinion expressed through conduct by a family member or another person with special means of knowledge is relevant when the Court must determine the relationship. Treatment of persons as spouses or of a person as a legitimate child may be relevant. Such opinion alone cannot prove marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, or specified Indian Penal Code prosecutions.

Section 49 makes opinions of persons possessing special means of knowledge relevant where a court must determine the usages or tenets of a body of persons or family, the constitution or governance of a religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning of words and terms used in particular districts or by particular classes.

Section 48 treats as relevant the opinions of persons likely to know whether a general custom or right exists when that issue requires determination. A general custom or right includes one common to a considerable class of persons, including villagers' right to use water from a particular village well.

Section 47A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes the opinion of the Certifying Authority that issued an Electronic Signature Certificate a relevant fact where a court must form an opinion on a person's electronic signature. The relevance applies only to the opinion of the Certifying Authority issuing the relevant Electronic Signature Certificate and where judicial assessment of a person's electronic signature is required.

Opinion evidence from a person acquainted with another's handwriting is a relevant fact when authorship of a document or signature is in issue. Acquaintance may be established by seeing the person write, receiving purported replies to authorised communications, or habitually receiving purportedly written documents in the ordinary course of business. Personal observation of the alleged writer is not essential where familiarity is acquired through regular correspondence or business dealings.

Facts bearing on expert opinions become relevant, though independently irrelevant, when they support or contradict an expert opinion that is relevant to the issue. Comparative evidence may test the reliability and evidentiary weight of expert conclusions, including evidence of symptoms in other poison-exposure cases or similar harbour conditions bearing on causation of obstruction.

Section 45A treats the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence as a relevant fact where an opinion is required concerning information transmitted or stored in a computer resource or other electronic or digital form. The Examiner is treated as an expert for this purpose.

Expert opinion evidence is relevant where forming an opinion requires specialised knowledge of foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting, or finger impressions. The opinion must be given by a person specially skilled in the relevant field, who is treated as an expert. Relevant applications include medical opinions concerning poisoning or unsoundness of mind, and expert comparison of disputed writing with admitted or proved handwriting.

Section 44 permits any party to a suit or other proceeding to challenge a judgment, order, or decree relied upon and proved by the adverse party where it is relevant under the provisions governing prior judgments. The party may establish that the deciding court lacked competence or that the judgment was procured through fraud or collusion.

Section 43 treats judgments, orders and decrees outside sections 40, 41 and 42 as generally irrelevant unless their existence is itself a fact in issue or independently relevant under another provision. Prior findings in disputes involving different parties do not ordinarily establish facts against persons not bound by those proceedings. A decree may be relevant to prove motive, while a previous conviction is relevant where it forms part of the fact in issue or demonstrates motive.

Judgments, orders and decrees concerning matters of a public nature may be relevant to an enquiry even when they do not fall within section 41. Their relevance does not make them conclusive proof of the facts stated. A prior decree concerning an asserted public right of way may therefore be considered in a later trespass dispute, without conclusively establishing the existence of that right.

Final judgments, orders or decrees of competent courts exercising probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction are relevant where they confer, remove or declare a legal character, or declare absolute entitlement to a specific thing. Such adjudications constitute conclusive proof of the legal character or title declared, including the time at which that character accrued or ceased, or the property became vested.

Previous judgments, orders or decrees that legally prevent a court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial are relevant facts. Their existence is relevant when determining whether the court ought to take cognizance of that suit or hold that trial, in relation to a legal bar against a second suit or trial.

Section 159(2)(b) permits proceedings that could have been taken against a deceased assessee to be initiated against the legal representative; it does not validate initiation against the deceased person. A scrutiny notice under section 143(2) is a substantive jurisdictional requirement for assessment under section 143(3). Where the legal representative filed the return, was registered by the Department before issue of notice, and promptly objected, a system-generated notice in the deceased person's name is void ab initio. The defect is jurisdictional, not procedural, and cannot be cured without waiver; consequential scrutiny assessment proceedings are quashed.

Section 39 applies the rule of evidentiary completeness when a statement forms part of a longer statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book, or connected correspondence. Evidence may include only the connected material that the Court considers necessary to understand the statement's nature and effect and the circumstances in which it was made. Material exceeding that necessity is excluded.

Foreign-law evidence is relevant where an opinion must be formed on the law of another country. Statements contained in books purporting to be printed or published under that country's Government authority, and reports of rulings contained in books purporting to report them, are relevant for ascertaining that law.

Statements concerning facts of public nature are relevant where a court must form an opinion on their existence, if contained in statutory recitals or specified gazette publications. Relevant sources include Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, Central, Provincial and State Acts, Government or Crown Representative notifications in the Official Gazette, and printed papers purporting to be the London Gazette or certain Government Gazettes.