Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and its applicability in Administrative law-

[Ashish kumar]

"I have tolerated you so much": Heated exchange between Judicial Member and Technical Member of NCLT Chandigarh
A lawyer who witnessed the exchange between the two members told Bar and Bench on condition of anonymity that the technical member has had disagreements with the judicial member in open court in the past as well.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/heated-exchange-judicial-member-technical-member-nclt-chandigarh
Recently an interesting news as quoted above has been surfaced in the various newspapers and at the web portal of Bar and Bench. I have heard that in ITAT also so many incidents are happening like recently an order has been passed by one member of Calcutta Bench in the case of Chandan Pradhan. Similarly, so many allegations are levied against junior members of 2024 batch that they are passing dissent orders and not consenting with the views of senior members. So it is very sorry state of affair in these days at the judicial forums, where the public interest writ large. And the sole reason is that personal and vested interest of the senior members is not getting fulfilment due to knowledgeable junior members. The seniors are making false allegations against junior members without knowing that if any matter would reach to any High Court then as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the presumption would be drawn against the senior member. Supposingly,  if any junior member would state before the investigating agency or some other nodal agency or before the High Court that the senior member or VPs of  zone are pressurising him to pass favourable judicial order to any of the party then the High Court or any other agency would presume the allegation against the senior member as correct for the simple reason that the Senior is sitting in influential position and hence as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence act as well as the various landmark cases decided by the Highest Court of this country, the presumption would go against them and then the burden is on senior to prove otherwise. Being a retried Government Servant it is my duty to spread such knowledge in the society which bring harmony among colleagues.