Supreme Court Sets Clear Boundaries for Power of Attorney Testimony: Knowledge Essential in Depositions

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India delineated the extent to which a Power of Attorney holder can provide testimony in legal proceedings, emphasizing the critical importance of personal knowledge in such depositions.

The verdict stemmed from a case wherein the appellants laid claim to an easementary right over a pathway ("rasta") traversing the property of the respondents. The appellants based their assertion on statements made by their Power of Attorney before the court. However, the Court found these assertions lacking credibility, as the Power of Attorney was not authorized to make statements on behalf of the appellants at the time of the alleged transaction.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra elucidated that a Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts within their personal knowledge. They cannot testify about matters beyond their purview or those within the exclusive knowledge of the represented individual. In this case, the court concluded that the Power of Attorney's testimony regarding the alleged easementary right lacked substance since it pertained to events occurring before his authorization as a representative.

The ruling underscores the principle that the credibility of testimony hinges on the firsthand knowledge possessed by the deponent. A Power of Attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction in question and have sufficient awareness of its details to provide reliable evidence. The court emphasized that the functions of a Power of Attorney cannot be delegated to others without explicit authorization, thereby reaffirming the need for direct involvement and knowledge on the part of the deponent.

This decision aligns with established legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., which underscored the necessity for personal knowledge and direct involvement in depositions. The court clarified that a Power of Attorney holder must have firsthand knowledge of the transaction and cannot be examined as a witness if lacking such insight. Moreover, any attempt to sub-delegate the functions of a Power of Attorney without explicit authorization is impermissible under law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling reiterates the fundamental principle that testimony provided by a Power of Attorney holder must be grounded in personal knowledge and direct involvement in the matter at hand. By setting clear boundaries for the admissibility of such testimony, the court ensures the integrity and reliability of evidentiary proceedings, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness in legal adjudication.