#Expert Evidence

The Supreme Court admitted an appeal by a UP Police constable candidate rejected by the departmental medical board for alleged squint, despite two independent expert opinions from GSVM Medical College and UHM District Hospital certifying normal vision. The ruling will clarify whether expert medical evidence from reputable institutions can override a departmental board's adverse finding in recruitment.

The Bombay High Court quashed Scrutiny Committee orders rejecting Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificates, ruling that a pre-Independence birth record cannot be dismissed as interpolated without expert handwriting analysis. The court directed issuance of certificates within three weeks, safeguarding applicants' rights against arbitrary rejection of historical documentary evidence.

The Uttarakhand State CDRC overturned a Rs 9 lakh medical negligence award, holding that expert evidence is required and mere perception insufficient. It affects patients under the CPA 1986, stressing need for medical expert testimony in negligence claims.

The Punjab State CDRC set aside the District Commission’s medical negligence ruling, holding that expert evidence is required to prove liability and that the burden to furnish it lies on the complainant under CPA 2019.

The NCDRC overturned a ₹38.25 lakh negligence award, ruling that a doctor's error of judgment does not constitute negligence if treatment adhered to accepted medical standards backed by expert opinion, especially absent a post-mortem confirming the cause of death.

Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses NEET UG 2026 answer key challenges, upholds expert panel's 'most appropriate answer' standard and OMR marking rules.

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismisses a complaint alleging battery range deficiency in a Mercedes EQC 400, ruling that mere mileage discrepancy without expert evidence fails to establish a manufacturing defect under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The decision underscores the burden of proof on consumers to substantiate claims with technical expertise, impacting electric vehicle litigation and consumer rights enforcement.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that non-treating medical experts may be relied upon to assess disability in motor accident compensation cases, affirming that cross-examination and professional credibility, not treating status, determine evidentiary weight. This empowers claimants and insurers to use specialized forensic opinions without being restricted to treating physicians, streamlining compensation adjudication.

Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules that automakers cannot be held liable for defects in third-party manufactured tyres unless the complainant proves negligence or deficiency in service by the automaker. The ruling dismisses the complaint against Honda Cars India, reinforcing that liability for component defects lies with the actual manufacturer, not the vehicle seller.

Madhya Pradesh High Court mandates courts to obtain expert opinion on disputed signatures under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, when doubt exists. The ruling underscores judicial caution, citing Supreme Court precedents that self-comparison of handwriting without expert aid is inadvisable, especially in cases hinging on signature authenticity.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that accepting partial compensation under protest does not waive the right to claim full compensation under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The court upheld an award of Rs. 2,66,906 with 9% interest, emphasizing that factual findings by lower courts are binding unless perverse or jurisdictionally flawed. This sets a precedent for landowners seeking full compensation for damage to trees and crops due to telecom infrastructure.

Madras High Court acquitted three accused, ruling that serving a single Section 50 notice to multiple individuals violates procedural safeguards, rendering the search illegal. The court also held that expert testimony lacking technical precision fails to meet evidentiary standards, reinforcing the need for strict compliance in NDPS cases.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed a municipal order that disregarded a court-supervised expert report declaring shops structurally safe, ruling that administrative authorities cannot override judicially endorsed technical findings when livelihood rights under Article 21 are at stake. The judgment reinforces that arbitrary administrative actions conflicting with judicial directions constitute a fraud on power, particularly where economic rights of citizens are involved.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that expert comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates a specific plea of forgery in pleadings and cannot be permitted at final arguments, especially if the defendant has partially settled the claim. The court emphasized that delayed applications without bona fides undermine judicial efficiency and fairness in civil disputes.