THE DAUBERT STANDARD: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES

Abstract

With the advances in technology happening almost daily, it is becoming more and more difficult for the Courts to keep up with them. Judges often feel perplexed when they have to decipher the complex issues that come up as a result of these advancements. The judges feel technically handicapped in assessing such evidences and because of this, the need for reliability on expert evidence/opinion over the years has increased manifold.  Even though taking the help of experts has become a matter of necessity, the courts still have to ensure that expert evidence is not just followed blindly, but sufficient safeguards or standards are in place to ensure that it can be depended upon, without causing unfair prejudice to any party. 

The judiciary has for a very long time known to have played the role of a “gatekeeper” when it comes to admissibility of expert opinion as evidence in trial, in order to make sure that it meets the basic standard of reliability.  Determining which expert evidence is relevant and which is “junk” is a daunting task that the judges have to perform, but at the same time the task is indispensable to the decision making process, and if not done the right way can change the outcome of the case completely.  For instance, in a civil case, this could result in an injured plaintiff who is denied compensation for some grievous harm or in a criminal case, expert testimony could convince a jury to convict a person, depriving him or her of freedom or even of life.3 Thus, the consequences are certainly extremely grave. 

In India, Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines the scope of expert evidence. The evaluation of an expert evidence is only done by assessing the credibility, credentials and qualifications the expert. The question of who is an expert is defined by section 45 as a person who has special knowledge and skill in the given field. Thus, India's evaluation of expert evidence is limited to an assessment of the credibility and qualifications of an expert witness, and there are various case laws to support the same.4 However, the situation is not the same in the United States, where there is more to this evaluation. The reliability and relevance of the expert's methodology, in addition to the expert's credentials, are subject to scrutiny in the United States.5 In 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , Inc.set forth the standard by which all federal and many state judges now evaluate proffered expert evidence. The case is known to be perhaps the most important case on evidence ever to be decided. The Supreme Court then further tried to clarify it through two other judgements namely, General Electric Co. v. Joiner6 and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 7, to make up what is now known as the Daubert trilogy.  

Through this paper, I aim to analyse the Daubert Standard as it is applied and understood in the United States. I further seek to analyse whether Indian laws on evidence adhere to the Daubert standard or not, and whether the Daubert Standard is understood by Indian courts in the same sense as it is understood by courts in the United States.