Published Paper Details:

The burden of proof is a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide, defining the responsibility of parties in litigation to establish their claims through credible evidence. As a fundamental procedural rule, its allocation and discharge ensure fairness, protect rights, and uphold justice. While the concept of the burden of proof is universal, its application varies significantly across jurisdictions, influenced by diverse legal traditions, cultural norms, and societal priorities. This research article delves into global perspectives on the burden of proof, providing a comparative analysis of its implementation in common law systems, civil law jurisdictions, and international human rights frameworks. The study aims to derive lessons from these systems to enhance the effectiveness of Indian evidence law. The first part of the article explores the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications of the burden of proof in common law and civil law traditions. Common law systems, including those in the United Kingdom and the United States, emphasize adversarial procedures, where the burden of proof is typically borne by the party asserting a claim. In contrast, civil law jurisdictions, such as Germany and France, adopt inquisitorial procedures, granting judges a more proactive role in gathering evidence and determining burdens. This section also examines how international human rights frameworks, such as the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations mechanisms, balance evidentiary responsibilities to protect fundamental rights. The second part focuses on lessons for Indian law, evaluating areas where global practices can inform reforms. Observations from international jurisdictions highlight innovative approaches to handling statutory presumptions, reverse burdens, and shifting burdens in complex cases. Indian law, governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, adheres to traditional principles but faces challenges in addressing contemporary issues such as corruption, terrorism, and digital evidence. The article critiques these challenges while proposing reforms inspired by global systems, such as integrating clearer standards for electronic evidence, refining reverse burden provisions, and adopting a more flexible approach to presumptions. The concluding section synthesizes the findings, underscoring the importance of aligning Indian evidentiary laws with global best practices. Recommendations include strengthening judicial training, enhancing legislative clarity, and fostering a more balanced framework that upholds individual rights without compromising public interest. The study advocates for a harmonized approach that integrates India's unique socio-legal context with the progressive elements of international legal systems. This research highlights the dynamic interplay between domestic and global legal principles, emphasizing the transformative potential of comparative analysis. By critically examining international perspectives, this article contributes to the ongoing discourse on improving procedural fairness in Indian law, offering pathways for harmonization and justice reform. The findings not only shed light on global evidentiary practices but also serve as a roadmap for India to navigate the complexities of modern litigation while preserving its constitutional ethos.