Legal Burden vs. Evidentiary Burden: The Two Distinct Meanings of 'Burden of Proof' in Indian Evidence Law
- Umang
- 8 hours ago
- 20 min read
Table of Contents
Advocates arguing before a trial court often use the expression "burden of proof" as though it carries one fixed meaning — and promptly talk past each other. One counsel invokes it to argue that the plaintiff must establish every ingredient of his cause of action. The other invokes it to argue that the defendant, having raised a particular plea, must now adduce evidence in support of it. Both are technically right, but about different things. The phrase "burden of proof," as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 uses and implies it, has two distinct connotations — and conflating them produces precisely this kind of confusion.
The source materials state the position directly: "It is evident that burden of proof or Onus Probandi has two different connotations and they are (a) Legal Burden or 'Burden' proper; and (b) Evidentiary Burden or Onus of Proof."
These are not variations on a single theme. They operate on different planes, they are borne by different parties at different stages, and the consequences of failing to discharge them are different. Every advocate who has ever lost a case on burden of proof — whether at trial or on appeal — will recognise the importance of keeping these two concepts cleanly separate.
The Statutory Framework: Sections 101, 102, and 103 of the IEA
Section 101: The Legal Burden Defined
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 sets out the basic rule in language that has
remained unchanged since the Act's enactment:
"Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
This is the legal burden. It rests on the party who asserts the existence of facts, and it requires that party to prove those facts to the satisfaction of the court. The party who desires a judgment — the plaintiff in a civil suit, the prosecution in a criminal trial — must prove the facts on which that judgment depends. This is a burden that travels with the party's claim; it does not move.
Section 102: Who Bears It When Both Sides Are Silent
Section 102 adds a practical test: the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This is the "vacuum test" — if the courtroom were emptied of all evidence and the judge had to decide the case on the pleadings alone, the party who would lose in that scenario is the party who bears the legal burden. In most civil suits, that is the plaintiff; in most criminal trials, that is the prosecution.
The source materials explain the first two sections together: Sections 101 and 102 deal with the legal burden, or burden of proof proper. They answer the question: at the outset of the trial, and throughout it, who is required to prove their case?
Section 103: The Evidentiary Burden on Particular Facts
Section 103 provides: the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
This section, as the source materials note, deals with the evidentiary burden or onus of proof. It addresses a narrower question: not who must prove the case as a whole, but who must adduce evidence on a specific contested fact. The person who wants the court to believe something must establish it.
This may be the plaintiff on some issues, the defendant on others — and on the same issue at different stages of the same trial, it may shift from one side to the other.
The Legal Burden: Constant, Immovable, Party-Fixed
The "You Went to Court" Principle
The legal burden is the obligation of a party to prove a particular issue in the case. It is imposed on the party who comes to the court to get a decision on the existence of certain facts which he asserts (SGP Committee v M P Dass Chela AIR 1998 SC 1978). That burden is constant throughout the trial (Lekhram and Brij Lal v State of Punjab (1993) Supp 4 SCC 361). It does not shift; it does not migrate; it remains fixed on the party who set the legal machinery in motion.
The principle underlying this rule is the same one that runs through the entire law of evidence: "You went to the Court, so you prove your case." Or stated differently: "You want a judgment in your favour, so you bear the burden and prove the case."
The plaintiff who files a suit for recovery of possession, the creditor who sues on a promissory note, the prosecution that charges a person with murder — each must bear the burden of proving the facts on which the claimed judgment rests. This is not a burden that can be discharged by pointing to the other side's failure to disprove.
The legal burden is connected to the right to begin. The burden of proof of the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts them, not on the party who denies them. A party has to prove an allegation before being entitled to a judgment in his favour (Parimal v Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150).
The plaintiff has the right to begin — to open the case and lead evidence first — unless the defendant admits all the facts alleged by the plaintiff but contends that even so the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, in which case the defendant has the right to begin.
Misplacing the Burden Vitiates the Judgment
It is a well-established dictum of the Evidence Act that misplacing the burden of proof vitiates the judgment (Rangammal v Kuppuswamy AIR 2011 SC 2344). When a court wrongly places the legal burden on a party who does not bear it — requiring a defendant to disprove facts that the plaintiff has not proved, or requiring an accused to rebut charges the prosecution has not established — the resulting judgment is flawed at its foundation.
A party accepting the burden of proof may not be permitted to complain about it on appeal (Bishambar Das v Telu Ram AIR 1934 Lah 1019). But where the court itself has misallocated the burden, the appellate court must intervene.
The rules governing the incidence of legal burden are described in the source materials as being "based upon certain practical considerations of convenience and reasonableness and also of policy." The policy consideration is fairness: the party who brings a claim to court is in the best position to know its basis and to gather the evidence in support of it. Placing the burden on the claimant encourages careful, well-grounded assertions and discourages speculative or vexatious litigation.
The Evidentiary Burden: Shifting, Responsive, Dynamic
How and When It Shifts
The evidentiary burden — what the source materials call the "onus of proof" — operates very differently from the legal burden. While the legal burden is constant, the evidentiary burden shifts from time to time having regard to the evidence adduced by one party or the other at a particular stage (Narchinva V Kamat v Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins AIR 1985 SC 1281). It is not anchored to any party; it follows the state of the evidence as it develops.
The mechanics are straightforward.
Before any evidence is led, the evidentiary burden rests on the same party as the legal burden — the plaintiff or prosecution, who must initiate proof. Once that party leads evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case on a particular issue, the evidentiary burden on that issue shifts to the opposite party.
The defendant or accused must now adduce evidence to counter the prima facie case, or risk having the issue decided against them. If the defence then adduces evidence that raises a genuine doubt or makes the plaintiff's case improbable, the evidentiary burden may shift back.
This shuttling continues throughout the trial. The evidentiary burden is, in the source materials' phrase, "responsive" — it responds to the state of the evidence at each stage. The legal burden never moves; the evidentiary burden never rests.
Presumptions and the Shift of Evidentiary Burden
The evidentiary burden also shifts when a presumption of fact or law is raised in favour of one party (Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana AIR 1998 SC 958). Where a party sues on a negotiable instrument, for instance, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption of consideration. That presumption, once activated, places the evidentiary burden of disproving consideration on the party who denies it. The party relying on the instrument need not initially adduce evidence of consideration — the presumption does the work.
Similarly, the presumption of continued life under Section 107 of the IEA places the burden of proving that a person is dead on the person who alleges it (Gurdit Singh v Munsha Singh AIR 1977 SC 640). The presumption of death after seven years of absence under Section 108 then flips this — once seven years of absence from those who would have heard of him is proved, the burden shifts to the person who asserts he is alive. Presumptions, in this sense, are the law's mechanism for pre-allocating the evidentiary burden on particular questions.
In civil cases where one party stands in a position of active confidence towards the other — as in the relationship of attorney and client, father and son near the age of majority, trustee and beneficiary — the burden of proving the good faith of a transaction between them lies on the party in the position of active confidence (Surendra Pal v Saraswati Arora AIR 1974 SC 1999). The normal evidentiary burden, which would rest on the party challenging the transaction, is reversed by the policy of protecting the weaker party.
The Importance of Onus at the Close of Evidence
The question of which party bears the evidentiary burden on a particular issue is of practical importance primarily at two stages: the beginning of a case (before any evidence is led) and when the party on whom it is placed fails to discharge it. As the source materials note, "it is not of much importance at the end of the case, when the parties have adduced sufficient evidence to determine the matter in dispute" (Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee v Charity Commissioner, Gujarat AIR 1995 SC 167). At that point, the court weighs all the evidence and decides.
The evidentiary burden argument becomes relevant again only if one party's evidence is considered insufficient to raise a genuine contest on a particular issue.
There is always a distinction to be drawn between the absence of legal evidence and the absence of reliable evidence.
Where it may be said with justification that there was no legal evidence at all in support of the prosecution case, it may lead to the inference that the commitment was bad; but where circumstances are relied upon to show that the evidence may perhaps not be believed, they do not lead to the inference that there is no legal evidence on the record (Khushi Ram v Hashim AIR 1959 SC 542). An argument that the other side's evidence should not be believed is not the same as an argument that no evidence was led.
The Right to Begin: Burden and Procedure
The incidence of the legal burden governs who leads evidence first. This is procedurally significant in both civil and criminal proceedings.
In civil cases, the plaintiff normally opens. In criminal proceedings, it is settled law that a criminal offence is a wrong against the State and society (Japani Sahoo v Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394), and the prosecution opens by describing the charge and stating by what evidence it proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.
This rule flows directly from the presumption of innocence: the accused is innocent until the prosecution proves him guilty. The prosecution accordingly has the right — and the obligation — to begin.
Failure to pursue the claim or complaint is attended with dismissal or acquittal. A party who bears the legal burden and fails to appear or lead evidence loses by default. The legal burden is not merely a rhetorical device; it carries procedural teeth.
Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings
The Prosecution's Legal Burden: Absolute and Unshifting
In criminal trials, the legal burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution, and that burden never shifts (Maharashtra v Vasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199).
The presumption of innocence — so deeply ingrained in all common law legal systems as to be described as a human right of the accused (Harendra Sarkar v State of Assam AIR 2008 SC 2467) — is the foundation of this rule. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the accused does not have to prove innocence.
This is the legal burden in its starkest form. No matter how suspicious the circumstances, no matter how unlikely the accused's story may appear, the accused is entitled to acquittal if the prosecution has not discharged its legal burden to the requisite standard.
The Accused's Evidentiary Burden: Defences and Exceptions
The accused carries an evidentiary burden in a limited but important set of situations. If the accused wants to plead alibi (Vishal v Veerasamy (1991) 2 SCC 375) or any of the general or special exceptions to criminal liability — such as the right of private defence, the plea of insanity, or diminished responsibility — the onus of proof for those pleas rests on the accused. But the nature and weight of this burden is distinct from the legal burden that rests on the prosecution.
The accused does not have to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. A preponderance of probability suffices — a standard "midway between that required in civil cases and in criminal cases" (Periasami v State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 457). Where, for instance, the accused pleads the right of private defence, it is enough to show, as in a civil case, that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of the plea (Ranveer Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 1658). The court must then assess whether that preponderance, combined with the prosecution's evidence, leaves a reasonable doubt about guilt.
None of these principles absolve the prosecution of its primary obligation. The evidentiary burden on the accused for defences only becomes relevant once the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, would sustain a conviction or make out a prima facie case. It is only at that point that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie on the accused (Ram Tahal v Uttar Pradesh (1972) 1 SCC 136).
Section 105: General and Special Exceptions
Section 105 of the IEA is one of the few sections that apply exclusively to criminal proceedings. It imposes on the accused the burden of proving the circumstances that would bring the case within any of the general or special exceptions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other criminal law.
The rationale for this allocation is practical: the accused knows better than anyone what plea he can take and what evidence he can lead in support of it (KM Nanavati v Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605). The accused may take mutually contradictory pleas — "accident" and "grave and sudden provocation" simultaneously — and these cannot be rejected merely on that account. The court will presume the absence of the exceptional circumstances unless the accused establishes them on a preponderance of probability.
Section 106: Facts Especially within the Knowledge of the Accused
Section 106 creates an exception to the general rule of burden of proof that operates wherever a fact is especially within the knowledge of a party. When any fact is pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving it lies on that person (Attygalle v King AIR 1936 PC 169). This rule does not apply when the fact is capable of being known by persons other than the party concerned (Razik Ram v JS Chouhan AIR 1975 SC 667).
The rule is not intended to shift the legal burden of proof of a crime onto the accused. It is designed to address situations where a fact is within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and it is well-nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove it (Shambhu Nath Mehra v State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404). Intention — a psychological fact — is the clearest example.
The prosecution commonly overcomes this difficulty by relying on surrounding circumstances to establish intent. But under Section 106, where a person acts with some intention other than what the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is on the accused (Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 123).
The plea of alibi also falls within this framework. Alibi is a negation of opportunity — the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the scene of the offence (Dudhhnath Pandey v Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 911). It is a fact best known to the accused (Vijayee Singh v Uttar Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 1459).
Technically, alibi is a plea rather than a defence proper, and it must be proved with absolute certainty — the burden of proof on this plea being heavier than that required to establish a general or special exception on mere preponderance of probabilities (Munshi Prasad v Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 451; Maharashtra v Nar Sing Rao AIR 1984 SC 63).
Reverse Burden: When the Law Inverts the Default Position
In the ordinary scheme of the IEA, the legal burden rests on the prosecution and never shifts. The concept of "reverse burden" departs from this. Where the law itself places the initial legal burden on the accused to prove his innocence — rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt — the presumption of innocence is displaced to the extent of the statutory provision.
As the source materials note, "the notion is as old as the Evidence Act itself." Even under the ordinary provisions, Section 114 illustration (a) permits the court to presume that a person in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received them knowing them to be stolen — unless he accounts for his possession. Under Section 106, the ticketless traveller bears the burden of proving he holds a ticket (Harendra Sarkar v State of Assam AIR 2008 SC 2467).
In modern legislation, reverse burden has been deployed extensively in statutes dealing with organised crime and terrorism: the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act have all, in varying degrees, placed the initial legal burden on the accused in respect of specific ingredients. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden of proving innocent receipt of a gratification lies on the accused (Mahesh Prasad Gupta v State of Rajasthan AIR 1974 SC 773).
Within the IEA itself, reverse burden operates in cases involving abetment of suicide of a married woman, dowry deaths, and custodial rape — where the Act, once certain facts are proved by the prosecution, raises presumptions that reverse the burden onto the accused.
A strong opinion has developed in jurisprudence that an incorrect acquittal — where a guilty person goes free because the reverse burden is not applied — is sometimes worse than an incorrect conviction, and that reverse burden provisions "bring about a far greater decrease in the risk of erroneous acquittals" (Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v NCT of Delhi (2013) 6 SCC 195).
The constitutional validity of reverse burden provisions has been tested repeatedly. The courts have held that a statute may throw the burden of proof of all or some of the ingredients of an offence on the accused (Alimuddin v King Emperor (1945)), and that any statute placing limited onus on the accused to prove matters within his special knowledge does not violate the Constitution (K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655).
Standard of Proof: The Third Variable
Burden of proof — in either of its two senses — is incomplete without the standard of proof. The standard answers the question: to what degree must the party bearing the burden establish the fact?
Civil Cases: Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings, the standard of proof is satisfied on a balance of probabilities. The court weighs the competing accounts and accepts the one that appears more probably true. A mere preponderance of probability constitutes an adequate basis of decision (Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209). The scales of justice are held even between plaintiff and defendant, and the party whose evidence tips the scales, however slightly, prevails.
Criminal Cases: Beyond Reasonable Doubt for the Prosecution
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is a considerably higher standard. A reasonable doubt is "not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a genuine doubt based upon reason and common sense" (Chotanney v Orissa AIR 2009 SC 2013). It must arise from the evidence, not from speculation or sympathy. Suspicion, however grave, is an insufficient basis for conviction (Razik Ram v Jaswant Singh Chouhan AIR 1975 SC 667).
The presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt are, as the source materials describe them, "the twin doctrines which are fundamental to criminal jurisprudence." They were first given their classical articulation in the House of Lords' decision in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935). If, at the end of the case, a reasonable doubt has been created by either the prosecution's own evidence or the defence's evidence, the prosecution has not made out its case and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Absolute certainty is not required — it is a myth (Uttar Pradesh v Krishna Gopal AIR 1988 SC 2154). The proof required is that of a prudent man who, on the evidence before him, is persuaded beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. The courts have been careful to emphasise that this standard should not be taken to extreme lengths — it is the standard of a reasonable person, not of a mathematical logician.
Criminal Cases: Preponderance of Probabilities for the Accused
Where the accused is required to prove something — a defence under Section 105, an alibi under Section 106, or a plea of insanity — the standard is that of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. It is not correct to say that proof beyond reasonable doubt is applied to criminal cases uniformly: that standard applies only to the prosecution's case (State v Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 SC 961). As regards the accused, the test is preponderance of probabilities — the same civil standard — and the benefit of every reasonable doubt that survives must be given to the accused.
Particular Instances of Evidentiary Burden in Civil
Matters
The source materials enumerate a wide range of specific instances where the evidentiary burden has been judicially allocated. A few are worth noting for their practical frequency.
The onus of proving estoppel falls on the person setting it up. The burden of proving waiver is on the person who relies on the waiver.
The initial burden of proving that a proceeding is within time is on the plaintiff or petitioner (Padhum Lal v Tribeni Singh AIR 1934 Pat 44), but a defendant pleading limitation must establish the facts supporting that plea (Madhusudan Das v Narayani Bai AIR 1983 SC 114).
The burden of proving adoption as a basis for displacing natural succession is on the person claiming by adoption (Trilochan Dandsena v State of Orissa AIR 1995 Ori 239). The burden of proving adverse possession is always on the person claiming title through it (Gummanna Shetty v Nagaveniamma AIR 1967 SC 1595). In suits for redemption of mortgage, the plaintiff must prove the subsisting mortgage. In ejectment suits, the plaintiff must prove title (Brahma Nand Puri v Neki Puri AIR 1965 SC 1506).
In contractual disputes, the burden of proving that a contract is governed by special rather than general rules of law rests on the party so contending (Maharaja Tej Chund Bahadur v Srikanilk Ghose 31 IA 36). The reasonableness of a restraint on trade must be established by the party supporting the contract (Niranjan Shankar Golikari v Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1098).
A plea that a document is forged or fictitious places the onus on the person who takes that plea (Pares Nath Thakur v Mohani Dasi AIR 1959 SC 1204).
Position Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ("BSA"), which has replaced the IEA, has preserved the burden of proof framework with no substantive change.
The provisions corresponding to Sections 101, 102, and 103 of the IEA are retained in the BSA with identical operative content. The two-pronged distinction between legal burden and evidentiary burden, the constancy of the former and the shifting nature of the latter, and the section-specific allocation of burdens — all survive the legislative transition intact.
The provisions corresponding to Section 105 of the IEA (general and special exceptions) and Section 106 (facts especially within knowledge) are similarly preserved. The reverse burden provisions built into the IEA for specific categories of offences — abetment of suicide, dowry deaths, custodial rape — continue under the BSA with equivalent provisions.
Section 2(2) of the BSA, which cross-references definitions in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the replacement for the CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the replacement for the IPC), ensures continuity in the interpretation of terms that are relevant to the burden of proof framework — including the "general and special exceptions" that the accused may seek to prove under what was Section 105 IEA.
Practitioners should note that while the substantive law on burden of proof is unchanged, the section numbers have shifted in the new enactment. All references to Sections 101–106 of the IEA must now be recalibrated to the corresponding sections of the BSA. The body of Supreme Court and High Court decisions interpreting the IEA provisions remains fully applicable, as the operative law is identical.
Conclusion
The distinction between legal burden and evidentiary burden is not a theoretical refinement. It has immediate, practical consequences at every stage of litigation — in the drafting of pleadings, in the strategy of evidence, in the framing of arguments at trial, and in the grounds of appeal.
The legal burden is constant: it sits on the party who asserts the claim, it does not move, and misplacing it vitiates the judgment. The evidentiary burden is dynamic: it responds to the state of the evidence at each stage, shifts with the introduction of prima facie proof and the operation of presumptions, and settles on the party who has not yet met the court's threshold of satisfaction on a particular fact.
In criminal proceedings, the tension between these two concepts is at its sharpest. The prosecution bears an absolute, unshifting legal burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused bears only an evidentiary burden on specific issues — and to a lower standard of proof. Where the law imposes reverse burden, it does so by express statutory provision, and its constitutionality rests on the confined nature of the facts so burdened.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 carries this framework forward unaltered. The names of the enactment and the section numbers have changed; the governing principles have not.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the difference between the legal burden and the evidentiary burden under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
The legal burden — governed by Sections 101 and 102 of the IEA — is the obligation of a party to prove the existence of the facts on which he bases his claim or defence. It is fixed on the party who asserts those facts and remains constant throughout the trial. The evidentiary burden — governed largely by Section 103 and the presumption provisions — is the burden of adducing evidence on a specific contested fact. It shifts from side to side as evidence is led and presumptions are raised, responding to the state of the case at each stage. The legal burden never shifts; the evidentiary burden perpetually does.
Q: Can the legal burden of proof ever shift from the prosecution to the accused in a criminal trial?
As a general rule, no. The prosecution's legal burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is absolute and unshifting (Maharashtra v Vasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981) 3 SCC 199). However, in "reverse burden" situations created by specific statutory provisions — such as the Prevention of Corruption Act or the NDPS Act — the law places the initial legal burden on the accused to disprove certain facts. Even there, the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts (such as possession of contraband or receipt of gratification) before the reverse burden is activated.
Q: What standard of proof does the accused have to meet when pleading a general or special exception in a criminal case?
Where the accused pleads a general or special exception under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (such as the right of private defence, insanity, or intoxication), Section 105 of the IEA places the burden of proof on the accused. The standard is a preponderance of probability — the same civil standard — not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused only needs to show that it is more probable than not that the exception applies. The benefit of every remaining reasonable doubt must still go to the accused.
Q: What is the "right to begin" and how does it connect to burden of proof?
The right to begin is the procedural right to lead evidence first. It is held by the party bearing the legal burden, because that party is required to first establish a prima facie case. In civil proceedings, the plaintiff normally has the right to begin; in criminal proceedings, the prosecution does. The exception arises where the defendant or accused admits all the facts asserted by the plaintiff or prosecution but contends that on those very facts the claimant is not entitled to relief — in that case, the defending party has the right to begin.
Q: Has the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 changed the law on burden of proof?
No. The BSA has preserved the entire burden of proof framework from the IEA without substantive change. The provisions corresponding to Sections 101, 102, 103, 105, and 106 of the IEA are retained with identical operative content. The two-pronged distinction between legal burden and evidentiary burden, the constancy of the legal burden, the shifting nature of the evidentiary burden, and the special rules for criminal proceedings all survive. Section numbers have changed, but the governing principles and the applicable case law remain the same.
Comments