In News:

• The Ayodhya title dispute judgment—a landmark decision of the Supreme Court—was founded on the principle of “preponderance of probabilities”, a key evidentiary standard in civil law. Former
• Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud (part of the 2019 constitutional bench) noted that the verdict was based not on religious sentiment or historical conjecture, but on civil law principles of possession and probability regarding ownership of the inner and outer courtyards of the disputed site.

Understanding the Principle of Preponderance of Probability

• The preponderance of probability is the standard of proof used in civil proceedings to determine whether a fact or claim is more likely to be true than false.
• It represents a balance of likelihoods, where the court weighs the evidence from both sides and accepts the version that appears more probable based on the available proof.
• Unlike the criminal law standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which requires a very high degree of certainty before convicting an accused, the civil standard merely requires showing that a claim is more likely than not.

Key Features

• A fact is considered proved if the court believes it exists on the balance of probabilities, as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The party bearing the burden of proof (typically the plaintiff) must present evidence that outweighs the opposing party’s version.
• The court does not demand absolute proof but relies on weighing evidence and drawing reasonable inferences.

This principle was elaborated in the case Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975), where the Supreme Court held that civil cases are determined based on which side’s evidence appears more credible, not necessarily conclusive.

Application in Civil Law

The preponderance of probability is the cornerstone of civil litigation, especially in matters relating to:

• Property and ownership disputes
• Contract enforcement
• Tort claims
• Family law and matrimonial matters

For instance, in a breach of contract case, a plaintiff only needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the contract was violated, rather than proving it beyond all possible doubt.

Ayodhya Judgment: Application of Civil Law Principles

In the Ayodhya title dispute case (2019), the Supreme Court applied the civil law test of possession and preponderance of probabilities to resolve competing claims over the disputed land.
The Court’s approach was rooted in legal reasoning rather than theological or emotive considerations.

Key Legal Reasoning

• The Court examined historical records, revenue documents, and testimonies to determine who had better evidence of possession of the inner and outer courtyards.
• The verdict concluded that while both Hindu and Muslim communities had worshipped at the site, the Hindus had stronger evidence of continued possession of the outer courtyard and belief in the Ram Janmabhoomi.
• The Muslim parties could not sufficiently establish exclusive possession of the inner courtyard before 1857.
• Hence, the balance of probabilities favored the Hindu claimants for ownership and management rights of the site.

Importantly, the judgment relied purely on civil law principles of possession and balance of probabilities, not on any assertion that the mosque’s construction was a desecration—a claim that does not feature in the 2019 verdict, despite later commentary.

Significance of the Principle

• Reinforces the objectivity of civil adjudication, where factual probabilities outweigh moral or religious narratives.
• Demonstrates the distinction between civil and criminal standards of proof in Indian jurisprudence.
• Ensures fairness in property disputes, where ownership is determined by evidence and not sentiment.
• Serves as a model case for the application of the Indian Evidence Act in balancing complex historical and legal claims.