{"id":230919,"date":"2020-06-15T18:25:10","date_gmt":"2020-06-15T12:55:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=230919"},"modified":"2020-07-14T18:52:36","modified_gmt":"2020-07-14T13:22:36","slug":"rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/","title":{"rendered":"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019?"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>\u201cIf I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation. Thus, we see three different results from three different means. Will you still say that the means do not matter?\u201d <\/i><b><i><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: right;\"><span class=\"s1\"><b><i>&#8212;<\/i><\/b><i> Mohandas Gandhi<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">Picture this: A police officer illegally breaks into a house belonging to a suspect (in an incident unrelated to any investigation) but stumbles upon a crucial piece of evidence (<i>say<\/i>, a blood-stained knife which looks like a murder weapon, or a forged letter of credit). Now, there\u2019s no doubt that this rather enterprising police officer has committed a crime (housebreaking\/trespass, amongst others) but would the evidence seized still be admissible in a court of law? Or would it be termed what we lawyers call the \u2018<i>fruits of a poisonous tree\u2019<\/i> and eschewed from consideration being inadmissible? Is it true that, even if something is admittedly stolen, it is still admissible in evidence?<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-230920 alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ME-199x300.jpeg\" alt=\"Bha\" width=\"165\" height=\"249\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ME-199x300.jpeg 199w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ME-40x60.jpeg 40w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/ME.jpeg 424w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 165px) 100vw, 165px\" \/> <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The short answer is Yes and <i>this<\/i> is precisely why the authors write this column. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, 1872<span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/span> (\u201cthe Evidence Act\u201d) forbidding the courts from looking at an illicitly obtained piece of evidence if it is otherwise relevant to the matter or goes on to establish the guilt or prove innocence. The Courts in India, as we shall shortly see, have time and again <i>held that illegally or improperly obtained evidence is not per se inadmissible<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">There are various ways in which evidence can be obtained illegally. Some of the common instances of illegally obtained evidence are: <\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"ul1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">Phone tapping\/recording, except in accordance with law; <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">Illegal search and seizure; <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">Forced narcoanalysis; <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">Recording activities using secret cameras. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">These instances are more common than one possibly imagines. This happens primarily because of: <\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"ul1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">A general attitude of disregard of procedures and due process guarantees; <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">The abysmal quality of our investigation; <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">Courts\u2019 reluctance in excluding such illegally obtained evidence for the fear of letting a guilty person go scot free on account of what is perceived to be a mere technicality.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The perils of accepting the fruits of a poisonous tree are, therefore, very real. Other jurisdictions have moved away from the principle, either totally or, at any rate, substantially diluted it. Throwing out \u2018illegally obtained evidence\u2019 would undoubtedly incentivize the police in improving their methods and investigating <i>in accordance with the law<\/i>. It would also protect due process rights, personal liberty and check police arbitrariness. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">In this background, the authors argue that there is a serious need to rethink the courts\u2019 view on \u2018admissibility of illegally obtained evidence\u2019. The authors argue that this <i>\u2018ends justify the means\u2019 <\/i>approach is capable of grave prejudice and is largely responsible for the abysmal quality of investigations in the country and a serious reconsideration is needed. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\"><b>Evolution of jurisprudence on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">Throughout history, the dominant approach of the judiciary has been <i>not to<\/i> exclude evidence on the ground of it being procured through illegal means. Evidence is weighed in a court based on its relevancy\/probative value, and irregularity or impropriety in the method of procuring said evidence does not, by itself, make the evidence inadmissible.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-230922 alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2020-06-14-at-1.56.59-PM-233x300.jpeg\" alt=\"\" width=\"199\" height=\"256\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2020-06-14-at-1.56.59-PM-233x300.jpeg 233w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2020-06-14-at-1.56.59-PM-47x60.jpeg 47w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2020-06-14-at-1.56.59-PM.jpeg 413w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 199px) 100vw, 199px\" \/> <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">One of the oldest cases on the question of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence is <i>R <\/i>v.<i> Leatham <\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[2]<\/span><\/strong>. This was a case of allegations of corrupt practices, heard before a Commission appointed under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854. A letter written by the person suspected of bribery to his agent was produced by the agent. On information being subsequently filed, this letter was called for and produced by the secretary of the Commission. An objection was raised concerning the admissibility of the letter because <\/span><span class=\"s3\">it had been discovered <i>in consequence of an inadmissible statement made by the accused<\/i><\/span><span class=\"s1\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">In this background, Crompton, J. said, <i>&#8220;It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible&#8221; <\/i>and the letter was admitted in evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">Closer to home, in India, we seemingly started off on the right track and, at least initially, did not follow the dictum of <i>R <\/i>v<i>. Leathem<\/i>. In <i>Ukha Kolhe <\/i>v<i>. State of Maharashtra<\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[3]<\/span><\/strong>, the Court had the occasion of dealing with this issue; the question before the Court was: the admissibility of a blood sample in a case where the procedure for testing the blood sample was not followed and given this illegality \u2013 the Court excluded the results of the blood test, holding that, it is clear that the legislative intent was that the prescribed due procedure must be followed for collection of blood samples, and there can be no other way of collecting evidence other than what is specifically laid down. The Court ruled that the evidence cannot be held admissible when the due procedure has not been followed. To come to this conclusion, the Court drew strength from the landmark case of <i>Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor<\/i> <strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[4]<\/span><\/strong>where it was held, \u201c\u2026 <i>where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden<\/i>\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\"><b>Indian courts\u2019 shift to a more consequentialist approach: <i>\u2018the tree may be poisonous but the fruit is fine,\u2019<\/i> in other words: \u2018the ends justify the means\u2019<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The judicial policy of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence was short-lived. In <i>R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[5]<\/strong><\/span>, the Court admitted illegally obtained evidence. In this case, the police had fixed a tape-recording instrument to a telephone with the consent of <i>only one<\/i> of the parties to record the conversation, however, the other side contended that the tape-recorded conversation had been procured through illegal means. In this background, it was held that \u201c<i>even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible<\/i>\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">Similarly, in <i>Poorna Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[6]<\/strong><\/span>, while ruling on the question of admissibility of material seized in a search, alleged to be vitiated by illegality, the Court held that \u201c<i>unless there is an express or necessary implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out<\/i>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">In <i>State of M.P. through CBIv. Paltan Mallah <\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[7]<\/span><\/strong> , it was held that \u201c<\/span><span class=\"s3\"><i>the evidence obtained under illegal search could still be admitted in evidence, provided, there is no express statutory violation or violation of the constitutional provisions\u201d. <\/i>The Court also went on to say that \u201c<i>The general provisions given in the Criminal Procedure Code are to be treated as guidelines and if at all there is any minor violation, still the court can accept the evidence and the courts have got discretionary power to either accept it or reject it.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">It is clear that, even if a piece of evidence is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is otherwise relevant and its genuineness is proved. This is the view that courts in India have taken. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. The ends <i>do<\/i> justify the means. This consequentialist approach is deeply troubling. Indian courts seem to be unduly moved by the fear of letting the guilty escape on account of a technicality. But in doing so, the courts have set a very dangerous precedent and there is no incentive anymore for the police officers to comply-with, much less improve, legal methods. These decisions have been used over the years to turn a total blind eye to the most serious procedural transgressions by the police in the collection of evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\"><b>Departures from the consequentialist approach <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">There have been <i>some cases<\/i>, however, where the courts have disallowed illegally obtained evidence<i>, if, in the given case, the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">In <i>Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P.<\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[8]<\/span><\/strong>, for instance, a complaint with supporting documents was sent to the Secretary, Union of India written by a Member of Parliament seeking an enquiry against the then, DG, alleging that he had disproportionate assets in the name of his wife and her associates. Later, it was known that the complaint was <i>not sent<\/i> by the Member of Parliament and, on an enquiry, it was found that the supporting documents annexed with the complaint were obtained by one <i>Y <\/i>on the instructions of a senior officer. On an FIR being filed and subsequent enquiry, a charge-sheet was filed against another person named Z. Z approached the Supreme Court for quashing of the charge-sheet against him; in this background, a question arose concerning the complaint against the DG and the Court held that, even though the complaint was false, the documents annexed with the complaint, though illegally collected, were not fabricated and, therefore, could be taken note of. It being the settled legal position that \u201c<i>even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">However, what is important is that the Court <i>also <\/i>went on to say: \u201cHowever, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate <i>unfairly against the accused.<\/i> More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation<i>\u2026\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">What exactly would operate \u201cunfairly\u201d against the accused is a fact-intensive exercise and no Indian judgment has laid down the precise contours of this exception. This exception seems to have been inspired by the \u201c<i>Unfair Operation Principle<\/i>\u201d in UK which prohibits admission of evidence if, in the given case, its reception runs contrary to the principles of basic fairness. The principle gives courts the discretion to decide, on a case to case basis, as to what would operate fairly or unfairly against the accused, and in appropriate cases, exclude such evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The Supreme Court in <i>Selvi <\/i>v<i>. State of Karnataka<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[9]<\/strong><\/span>, while testing the legality of scientific tests like polygraph or narcoanalysis, made some interesting observations in this regard. The Court opined that if involuntary statements were given weightage during a trial, the investigators might feel incentivized to, \u201c<i>compel such statements &#8211; often through methods involving coercion, threats, inducement or deception.<\/i>\u201d In the view of the Court, the right against self-incrimination served as a safeguard against torture and other methods that could be used to elicit information and the exclusion of such testimonies was important as otherwise, investigators will rely more on such violative methods instead of following the due process of law and this would be against the protection against self-incrimination granted by the Constitution. The Court remarked, \u201c<i>The frequent reliance on such `short-cuts&#8217; will compromise the diligence required for conducting meaningful investigations<\/i>.\u201d The Court seemed to suggest or at least presage exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>Selvi<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[10]<\/strong><\/span> was also observed by one of the most celebrated and landmark judgment of recent times; the nine-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in <i>K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[11] <\/strong><\/span>which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right, entitled to protection as a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Court also overruled certain judgments which held contrary views like <i>KharakSingh<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[12]<\/strong><\/span> which was relied on in <i>R.M. Malkani<\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[13]<\/span><\/strong><i>.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">Taking this step of recognition of the right to privacy as an inherent fundamental right further, the Bombay High Court in <i>Vinit Kumar v. CBI<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[14]<\/strong><\/span>, set aside certain interception orders and directed the destruction of copies of the intercepted messages. Here, the issue was whether the orders which directed interception of telephone calls were <i>ultra vires <\/i>of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885<strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[15]<\/span><\/strong> and the Rules and whether they were violative of the petitioner\u2019s fundamental rights. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The petitioner relied heavily on a judgment of the Supreme Court in <i>People\u2019s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[16]<\/strong><\/span> which, being way ahead of its time, had recognised \u201c<i>hold[ing] a telephonic conversation in one\u2019s home or office without interference<\/i>\u201d as a part of the right to privacy. The Court observed that adopting the adage \u2018the ends justify the means\u2019, \u201c<\/span><span class=\"s3\"><i>would amount to declaring the government authorities may violate any directions of the Supreme Court or mandatory statutory rules in order to secure evidence against the citizens. It would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote the scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens, and law laid down by the Supreme Court<\/i>\u201d<\/span><span class=\"s1\">. This decision, again, seems to place unconstitutionally obtained evidence on a higher pedestal than evidence which is merely illegally obtained. Given the fact that the a huge body of precedent (permitting the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence) still stands, it would be interesting to see if other courts would be inclined to pursue and take further the Bombay High Court\u2019s decision in <i>Vinit (supra) <\/i>and the Supreme Court\u2019s<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0 <\/span>decision in <i>Selvi<\/i> (supra) and start excluding <i>even illegally obtained evidence<\/i>. The authors argue that <i>they should<\/i> since not doing so would be tantamount to saying that: something which is illegally obtained may still be termed \u2018constitutionally obtained\u2019 and received in evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The Bombay High Court judgment in <i>Vinit Kumar<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[17]<\/strong><\/span>, needless to state, is extremely welcome though its capacity for general application in other cases is doubtful given the fact that the rules under the Telegraph Act <i>specifically allow<\/i> the destruction of illegally obtained evidence. Evidence illegally obtained in other proceedings, where there is no specific provision of destruction\/exclusion, is still likely to be held admissible and the general rule still remains: \u201c<i>even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible<\/i>\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\"><b>Comparison with other jurisdictions<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p5\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">In the United States (\u2018US\u2019), before 1914, warrantless and illegal searches were common and evidence procured from these searches was admissible in court. However, in 1914, the United States Supreme Court had to deal with the question of a warrantless search of a house wherein the evidence collected was used to convict the owner of the house for illegal gambling. This was the case of <i>Fremont Weeks v. United States<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[18]<\/strong><\/span> where the Court overturned Week\u2019s conviction based on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the US, which <\/span><span class=\"s3\">bars the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search and seizure. Thus, was born the exclusionary rule, which is a judicially created remedy used to check police misconduct in obtaining evidence. As per the exclusionary rule, a Judge may exclude incriminating evidence from a criminal trial if there was police misconduct in obtaining the evidence. The exclusionary rule was the predecessor of the doctrine of \u201c<i>fruits of the poisonous tree<\/i>\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p5\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s3\">The doctrine of the \u201c<i>fruits of the poisonous tree<\/i>\u201d holds that the evidence (fruit) from an illegal search or seizure which is a tainted source (the tree), would also be tainted and hence, inadmissible. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p5\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The term \u201c<i>fruits of the poisonous tree<\/i>\u201d was first used by Frankfurter, J. in <i>Nardone <\/i>v<i>. United States<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[19]<\/strong><\/span> wherein it was held that, i<\/span><span class=\"s3\">n a prosecution in a federal court, evidence procured by tapping wires in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 is inadmissible. This was applied not only to the intercepted conversations but also to evidence procured through the use of knowledge gained from such conversations. Eventually, there was a <\/span><span class=\"s1\">difference of opinion and contradictory judgments with regard to the exclusionary rule until 1961, when, in <i>Mapp <\/i>v. <i>Ohio<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[20]<\/strong><\/span><i>, <\/i>the US Supreme Court held that under the &#8220;<i>due process<\/i>&#8221; clause, evidence obtained by a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a State prosecution for a State crime. Though this initially applied to criminal cases only, in recent times, the US courts have also applied this to civil cases. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p5\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s3\">However, as with most things in criminal law, the exclusionary rule also has some exceptions which attempt to <\/span><span class=\"s1\">strike a balance between the imperatives of fact-finding\/prosecution and the protection of the due process of rights of the accused. The exceptions are as follows<span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[21]<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol class=\"ol1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li class=\"li6\"><span class=\"s1\">Use of illegally obtained evidence not for the purpose of proving guilt but to impeach the credibility of the accused should he\/she choose to depose; <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li6\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Inevitable discovery: <\/b>By virtue of this exception, something which the police would have found inevitably, even without the illegal search\/seizure\/method, is taken to be admissible. <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li6\"><b><\/b><span class=\"s1\"><b>Good faith: <\/b>An officer acting under the impression of being permitted by law, for instance, conducts a search believing a warrant to be authorised but later revoked, is believed to have acted in good faith and any discovery is held admissible in law.<\/span><span class=\"s3\"> This exception was created by the Supreme Court in\u00a0<i>United States v. Leon<\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[22]<\/span><\/strong><i>, <\/i>because, according to the majority opinion, the rule was designed to deter police misconduct, and excluding evidence when the police <i>did not actually misbehave <\/i>would not deter police misconduct and only lead to vital evidence being eschewed without any redeeming value. <\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li6\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Independent source: <\/b>Evidence procured by illegal means by an independent source or third person which in part at least is not obtained from a tainted source. A<\/span><span class=\"s3\">n independent source must be someone absolutely unconnected to the illegality of the arrest, search, and\/or seizure (<\/span><span class=\"s6\"><i>People <\/i><\/span><span class=\"s3\">v<\/span><span class=\"s6\"><i>. Arnau<\/i><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[23]<\/span><\/strong><\/span><span class=\"s3\">).<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li6\"><span class=\"s3\"><b>Attenuation<\/b>. If the link between an illegal search and legally admissible evidence is thin, the evidence is admissible, even if the illegal search may have set in motion the chain of events that led to evidence being revealed. In other words, unless it can be proven that the evidence resulted directly from some illegal action taken by law enforcement officials, it can be admitted.\u00a0 In\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"s6\"><i>People v. Martinez<\/i><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[24]<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span class=\"s3\">, a three-part test was established for this exception: &#8220;(1) <i>the time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consensual search; (2) the presence of intervening factors or event; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct<\/i>&#8220;.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p class=\"p7\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">In the United Kingdom (\u2018UK\u2019),<b> <\/b>Section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0 <\/span>(\u201cthe PCE Act\u201d) states that, in any proceedings, a court may <i>refuse to allow evidence<\/i>, if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings; this is known as the \u201c<i>Unfair Operation Principle<\/i>\u201d<\/span><span class=\"s7\">. <\/span><span class=\"s1\">Section 82(3) of the PCE Act also gives courts the power to refuse evidence (whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise) at its discretion. <\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s3\">Back home in India, the Law Commission of India, in its 94th Report<span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[25]<\/strong><\/span>, suggested the incorporation of a provision Section 166-A in Chapter 10 of the Evidence Act which, if enacted, would have read as \u201c<i>In a criminal proceeding, where it is shown that anything in evidence was obtained by illegal or improper means, the court, after considering the nature of the illegality or impropriety and all the circumstances under which the thing tendered was obtained, may refuse to admit it in evidence, if the court is of the opinion that because of the nature of the illegal or improper means by which it was obtained its admission would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute<\/i>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p5\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The Law Commission also suggested that a court, while making the above assessment, may consider all the circumstances surrounding the proceedings and the manner in which the evidence was obtained, including but not limited to: <\/span><\/p>\n<ol class=\"ol2\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li class=\"li5\"><span class=\"s1\">the extent to which human dignity and social values were violated in obtaining the evidence;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li5\"><span class=\"s1\">the seriousness of the case;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li5\"><span class=\"s1\">the importance of the evidence;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li5\"><span class=\"s1\">the question whether any harm to an accused or others was in?icted wilfully or not, and;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li5\"><span class=\"s1\">the question of whether circumstances were justifying the action, such as a situation of urgency requiring action to prevent the destruction or loss of evidence.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p class=\"p4\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">However, none of the above was ever implemented and the courts, in India, except a handful of decisions to the contrary (not capable of general application), continue to go by the dictum of <i>\u2018even if it\u2019s stolen, it is admissible in evidence\u2019.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p7\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\"><b>Way forward <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p7\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>\u201cThere is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.\u201d &#8211; Montesquieu<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p7\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span class=\"s1\">The time is always right to do what is right. The countries which originally incorporated this principle have moved away from it and so must India. On the judiciary\u2019s side, the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in <i>Puttuswamy, <\/i>followed by the Bombay High Court\u2019s judgment, is definitely a step in the right direction and a step we welcome. Having said that, an amendment in the law is imperative to clearly lay down a rule where the court is given the discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence; which discretion may be exercised &#8211; keeping in mind a variety of circumstances as detailed above. If the change doesn\u2019t come-in from the legislature, the judiciary must clearly lay down exclusionary principles (as in US) or put the \u2018unfair operation principle\u2019 (inspired from UK) on firmer legal ground. It is high time that the law, instead of looking the other way, must disincentivise illegal investigations and protect due process by refusing to receive illegally obtained evidence. <i>Any other view would be tantamount to the law missing the forest for the (poisonous) trees. <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p class=\"p1\"><strong><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\">*Former Judge. Partner, L&amp;L Partners, Law Offices. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><strong><span class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #008000;\">**Associate, L&amp;L Partners. The views of the authors are personal.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/CmD6h6Ep\">Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[2]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\">(<\/span><span class=\"s2\">1861) 8 Cox CC 498<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[3]<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0 (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/lXrgbDDy\">1964) 1 SCR 926\u00a0<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[4]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8GXxjO7y\">1936 SCC OnLine PC 41<\/a> <span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[5]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7ezUYeV8\">(1973) 1 SCC 471<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[6]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/x0sjmbYA\">(1974) 1 SCC 345<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[7]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/zK60e0WZ\">(2005) 3 SCC 169<\/a>, <\/span><span class=\"s2\">\u00b6 32<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[8]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/sXllM5JO\">(2013) 10 SCC 591<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[9]<\/span><\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/GOIb9dz6\">(2010) 7 SCC 263<\/a><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[10]<\/span><\/strong> Ibid<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[11]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\">(<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/91Brhvd7\">2017) 10 SCC 1<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[12]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\">Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/FD3qAsEl\">(1964) 1 SCR 332<\/a><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[13]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\">R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7ezUYeV8\">(1973) 1 SCC 471<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[14]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/22R58CJw\">2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155<\/a><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[15]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/XiSCXTmY\">Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[16]<\/span><\/strong> <span style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2E89q2fb\">(1997) 1 SCC 301<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[17]<\/span><\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/22R58CJw\"><span class=\"s1\">2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p>[18] <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8e2QYN9i\"><span class=\"s1\">1914 SCC OnLine US SC 61<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p>[19] <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Q973E172\"><span style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\">1939 SCC OnLine US SC 151<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p>[20] <span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/4hD0GrXQ\">1961 SCC OnLine US SC 136<\/a><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>[21] <span class=\"s1\">\u2018The Law: Illegally Obtained Evidence\u2019 (<i>Universal Class<\/i>), available at-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.universalclass.com\/articles\/law\/illegally-obtained-evidence.htm\"><span class=\"s2\">https:\/\/www.universalclass.com\/articles\/law\/illegally-obtained-evidence.htm<\/span><\/a> Last accessed on 08.04.2020.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[22]<\/span><\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Qf0N836G\"><span class=\"s1\">1984 SCC OnLine US SC 195<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[23]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\">58 NY 2d 27(N.Y.1982)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[24]<\/span><\/strong> <span class=\"s1\">38 Cal 2d 556<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">[25]<\/span><\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/C06teGxU\"><span class=\"s1\" style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\">94<\/span><span class=\"s2\" style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\"><sup>th<\/sup><\/span><span class=\"s1\" style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\"> Report of Law Commission of India on Evidence obtained Illegally or Improperly: Proposed Section 166-A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Bharat Chugh* &#038; Taahaa Khan**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":228869,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[6252,6231],"class_list":["post-230919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-evidence-act","tag-law-commission"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"by Bharat Chugh* &amp; Taahaa Khan**\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-06-15T12:55:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-07-14T13:22:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/\",\"name\":\"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-15T12:55:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-07-14T13:22:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019? | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019?","og_description":"by Bharat Chugh* & Taahaa Khan**","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-06-15T12:55:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-07-14T13:22:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/","name":"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg","datePublished":"2020-06-15T12:55:10+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-14T13:22:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/15\/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rethinking the \u2018Fruits of the poisonous tree\u2019 doctrine: Should the \u2018ends\u2019 justify the \u2018means\u2019?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":331098,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/19\/the-case-for-adopting-audio-video-recording-and-transcription-of-oral-evidence-in-civil-and-criminal-trials\/","url_meta":{"origin":230919,"position":0},"title":"The Case for Adopting Audio-Video Recording and Transcription of Oral Evidence in Civil and Criminal Trials","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by S. Sasidhar Reddy*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Adopting Audio-Video Recording","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Adopting-Audio-Video-Recording.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Adopting-Audio-Video-Recording.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Adopting-Audio-Video-Recording.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Adopting-Audio-Video-Recording.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324907,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/22\/government-notifies-public-examinations-prevention-of-unfair-means-act-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":230919,"position":1},"title":"Government notifies Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Act aims to check cheating in government recruitment exams.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"cheating in government recruitment exams","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/02-143.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/02-143.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/02-143.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/02-143.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":104341,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/06\/sahara-matter-sebi-directed-to-attach-the-subrata-roys-aamby-valley-property\/","url_meta":{"origin":230919,"position":2},"title":"Sahara Matter: SEBI directed to attach the Subrata Roy&#8217;s Aamby Valley property","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 6, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Allowing SEBI to attach the properties belonging to Sahara Group, the Court directed Sahara to file a list of properties that can be put to public auction by 27.02.2017. The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi and A.K. Sikri, JJ said that the properties suggested for public\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":105801,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/13\/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-of-india-procedure-for-governing-board-meetings-regulations-2017-notified\/","url_meta":{"origin":230919,"position":3},"title":"Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Procedure for Governing Board  Meetings) Regulations, 2017, notified","author":"Saba","date":"February 13, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"IBBI\/2016-17\/GN\/REG007.\u2014 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 192(1) read with Section 240 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India hereby makes the following regulations, namely:\u2014 Chapter I-Preliminary 1. Short title and commencement. (1) These regulations may be called Insolvency and Bankruptcy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legislation Updates&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":128881,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/04\/insurance-ombudsman-rules-2017\/","url_meta":{"origin":230919,"position":4},"title":"Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, notified","author":"Saba","date":"May 4, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"G.S.R. 413(E).\u2014 Whereas, the draft of certain rules namely, the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2016, were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) dated the 15th September, 2016 under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legislation Updates&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":123991,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/04\/11\/no-prosecution-for-attempt-to-commit-suicide-person-shall-be-presumed-to-be-under-severe-stress\/","url_meta":{"origin":230919,"position":5},"title":"No prosecution for attempt to commit suicide: Person shall be presumed to be under severe stress","author":"SM","date":"April 11, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Enacting the new Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Parliament has decriminalised the attempt to commit suicide. A person attempting to commit suicide shall be presumed\u00a0to be under severe stress and shall not be prosecuted or punished under Section 309 of the Penal Code, 1860, unless proven otherwise. Further, the appropriate government\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legislation Updates&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/parliamentSM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/parliamentSM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/parliamentSM.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/parliamentSM.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/parliamentSM.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/parliamentSM.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230919\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/228869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}