Farak between Relevancy and Admissibility
evidence ts_lawcet beginner comparisonYe dono concepts bahut confusing hain, right? Main to har bar confus ho jaata hoon, "Relevancy" aur "Admissibility" ka difference kya hai? Iska difference sirf isme hai ki Relevancy wala proof relevant hai ya nahi, while Admissibility wala proof court mein admissible hai ya nahi. Lekin, agar proof relevant hai, to uska Admissibility toh hoga hi na? Toh, woh dono ka fark nahi pata? Plzz, help karo guys, kisne iska sahi explanation diya hai? Main to abhi bhi confused hoon.
3 Comments
Yeh sach hai ki Relevance aur Admissibility mein farak hona bahut zaroori hai. Lekin, mujhe lagta hai ki yeh distinction bahut jaldi seekha jata hai. Relevance to kisi saamany ki baat hai, jabki Admissibility to koi vishesh evidence ka pravaah hai. Inke beech ki safaai kuch aur hai, jo court ko decide karni hai.
Main bolta hoon ki yeh dono shabdon ka farak bahut bada hota hai. Admissibility ka matlab yeh hai ki janta ki evidence kya ban ke dala jaa rahi hai, whereas Relevancy ka matlab yeh hai ki woh evidence is case ke liye koi value rakhti hai ya nahin. Ye dono alag-alag cheezen hain.
"Relevancy aur admissibility mein fark yeh hai ki kuch evidence relevant ho sakta hai lekin uski admissibility nahi ho sakegi. Relevancy ka matlab yeh hai ki evidence case se related hai, jabki admissibility ka matlab yeh hai ki evidence witness, document, ya anya tareeke se pramanik hota hai.