Advocate-Client Privilege | Court Can't Compel Lawyers To Reveal Source Of Documents Filed On Client's Instructions: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose the source of document given by the client as it falls within privileged communication, without there being any prima facie judicial finding of fraud. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that when a client hands over a document to their lawyer for legal defense, such an act regarding origin of the document is part of...
The Delhi High Court has held that a lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose the source of document given by the client as it falls within privileged communication, without there being any prima facie judicial finding of fraud.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that when a client hands over a document to their lawyer for legal defense, such an act regarding origin of the document is part of the professional confidentiality.
“The primary responsibility for the documents filed in Court lies with the Party i.e. the Client. To compel an advocate to disclose that “Client X gave me this document”, is to compel the disclosure of the “source” of the documents is protected by Section 126 IEA. Such documents filed by the Counsel are at the behest of the client and for and on his behalf,” the Court said.
The Court made the observations while setting aside an order directing advocates appearing for McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. to file personal affidavits disclosing the “source” of documents placed before a revisional court.
The impugned order held that such a direction violated the statutory privilege between a lawyer and client under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The trial court had required the company's lawyers to disclose how they obtained two applications of the year 2011 which were relied upon during the revision proceedings to secure a stay against search and seizure directions in a criminal complaint filed by one Deepak Khosla.
Allowing the plea, Justice Krishna said that the trial court had compelled the advocates to breach their professional duty, which falls squarely within the ambit of “communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment” and is protected by the Client-Advocate privilege under Section 126 of Indian Evidence Act.
“While the Court can ask for the truth, it cannot compel a lawyer to disclose what the law expressly protects, absent a clear finding that the lawyer is conspiring in a fraud committed during the employment,” the Court said.
It added: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the Impugned Order dated 20.05.2017 fails to appreciate that the information sought is covered by the privilege between the client and the advocate. The exception of fraud was not prima facie established to warrant piercing this privilege, especially when a plausible explanation of service in CLB proceedings was available on record.”
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Stuti Gujral, Adv., Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Adv., Mr. Tasnimul Hassan, Adv., Ms. Priti Verma, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State along with Adv. Kshitiz Garg, Adv. Ashvini Kumar, Adv. Nitish Dhawan, Adv. Chavi Lazarus, Adv. Manan Wadhwa, Adv. Luv Mahajan
Title: MCDONALDS INDIA LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68