Difference between “Presumptions of Law” and “Presumptions of Fact”

Difference between Presumptions of Law and Presumptions of Fact are as follows:

Presumptions of Law:

Image Source: androidheadlinescom

1. Discretion of Court —

No discretion is vested in the Court at all. The law peremptorily requires a certain inference to be made whenever the facts appear which the law assumes as the basis of the inference.

2. Rules of law —

Presumptions of law are, in reality rules of law and part of the law itself.

3. Presumptions of law must be drawn.

4. Kinds —

There are two kinds of presump­tions of law — rebuttable and irrebuttable.

Presumptions of Fact:

1. A discretion, more or less exten­sive as to drawing the inference, is vested in the tribunal.

2. Presumptions of fact are not rules of law.

3. Presumptions of fact may or may not be drawn.

4. There is no such division in the case of presumptions of fact

The above can be expressed in the following tabular statement:

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS are inferences which the law makes so peremptorily that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof, however strong.

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS are rules defining the nature and the amount of the evidence which is sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to throw the burden of proof upon the other party; and, if no opposing evidence is offered, the Court is bound to come to a conclusion in favour of the presumption.

MIXED PRESUMPTIONS or presumptions of law and fact, lie in- between the above two, and consist mainly of certain presumptive inferences which attract the observation of the law.

‘Presumption’ and ‘Proof’:

“Proof” is that which leads to the conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Proof may be effected by (1) evidence, (2) admissions, or (3) judicial notice. Thus, presumptions are the means, and proof is the end, of judicial inquiry. Presumption is merely an inference. When a rebuttable presumption operates in favour of a party, it is for the opponent to disprove it by adducing evidence to the contrary.