Preponderance of Probabilities
What is ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’?
Preponderance of Probabilities, very simply put, is a balance of probabilities. Serving to be the standard of proof in most civil suits, it involves the process of weighing evidence, and assessing whether the fact in question presents a more probable scenario or is more likely than not to be true.
Official Definition of ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proven when “after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.” This reflects the essence of the ‘Test of Probabilities’.[1]
The Supreme Court of India, in Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975)[2], elaborated on this principle by ascertaining the two key steps involved – identify relevant probabilities, and subsequently, weigh them. By eliminating the impossible, and improbable in the first and second stages respectively, the fact is left to be determined on the basis of the most probable conclusion. Similarly, In Bichai v. DaVita Inc., the Fifth District Court of Appeals of California, emphasised that the standard established for the preponderance of evidence requires the “trier of fact” to find the existence of a particular fact more probable than its nonexistence.[3]
Types of ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’
Application of ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ across various sectors –
| LEGISLATION | APPLICATION |
| Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. | The Supreme Court observed that in cases involving motor accident claims, courts must apply the ‘preponderance of possibilities’ standard, as opposed to that of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Section 166 of the MV Act[4] reinforces this – in a claim for compensation, the plaintiff is to prove that the likelihood of the defendant’s fault is higher than any other possibility. Here, factual and circumstantial evidence are central to the claim.
Eg. Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George. |
| Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, 2013. | In Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. V. Union of India and Others[5], the Apex Court has clarified that the standard of proof is ‘preponderance of probabilities’, and there is no need to establish the charge of sexual harassment beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, the PoSH Act authorizes the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to apply this standard when evaluating whether the evidence presented supports the likelihood that harassment occurred. Given the sensitive nature of such allegations, the threshold of proof is lowered to ensure fairness, while still upholding ideals of justice and equity. |
International Experience
In the US, as pronounced in Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. State Board of Equalization[6], ‘preponderance of evidence’ requires the plaintiff to establish that their claim is more probable, and convincing than that of the defendant (over 50% proof).
Although the application of ‘balance of probabilities’ is identical to the US, some judicial interpretations in the UK may adjust the rigour of this standard by accounting for the ‘inherent likelihood’ of competing evidence, in cases where serious allegations are involved, such as that of professional misconduct or family law matters.
Similarly, Australia employs the Briginshaw Principle[7] to heavily scrutinise and assess the implications of the given evidence on the parties involved, thereby, meeting the threshold of “balance”.
Challenges
- Personal Bias: This proves to be a challenge when decision-makers favor information that support their existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. A biased judge, for instance, may interpret evidence in a manner that favors one party, even if the overall weight of the evidence suggests otherwise. This undermines the objective evaluation of evidence, which is seen to be of utmost importance in maintaining integrity within the judicial system.
- Subjectivity: Falling under the PoSH Act, are incidents that often rely on personal recollection and experience. Subjective in nature, these judgments can, therefore, heavily influence the ICC in their task of finding harassment claims credible.
Related Terms - Also Known As
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Balance of Probabilities
References
- ↑ The Indian Evidence Act 1872, s (3). <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/IEA_1872.pdf>.
- ↑ Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane [1975] 3 S.C.R (SC) <https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/NG_Dastane>.
- ↑ Bichai v. DaVita Inc. [2021] <https://casetext.com/case/bichai-v-davita-inc>.
- ↑ Motor Vehicles Act 1988, s(166) <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/MVA_1988-59.pdf>.
- ↑ Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India [2012] 9 S.C.R. 895 <https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/SupremeCourtReport/2012_v9_piv.pdf>.
- ↑ Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. State Board of Equalization [1989] <https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/union-pacific-r-co-888695616>.
- ↑ Chris Nowlan, “The Briginshaw Principle” <https://chrisnowlan.com/briginshaw.pdf>
