Privileged communications, as defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, refer to specific categories of information that are protected from being disclosed as evidence in a court of law. The purpose of privilege is to encourage open and honest communication within certain confidential relationships, such as attorney-client or doctor-patient, by preventing the disclosure of such communications in court. The Indian Evidence Act recognizes various forms of privileged communications.
Attorney-Client Privilege (Section 126)
- Communications between an attorney and their client are protected from disclosure. This privilege is intended to promote candid discussions between clients and their lawyers to facilitate effective legal representation.
- This privilege extends to any legal adviser, including solicitors, barristers, and attorneys.
Communications during Marriage (Section 122)
- Spousal communications made during the course of a valid marriage are generally protected from disclosure. This privilege is meant to encourage open communication between spouses.
Official Communications (Section 123)
- Communications made by an official to another official in the course of official duty are privileged. This protection is in place to ensure that government officials can communicate effectively and without fear of legal repercussions.
Professional Communications (Section 124)
- Communications made to an advocate, attorney, or physician, in cases where the client is seeking professional advice to commit illegal or wrongful acts, are not protected. This privilege does not extend to communications that facilitate wrongdoing.
Section 122 to Section 129 Privileged Communications
| Section | Type of Privilege | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Section 122 | Communication during marriage | – Protects communications between spouses during their marriage. – Exception in suits between married persons or when one spouse is prosecuted for a crime against the other. |
| Section 123 | Evidence as to affairs of State | – Protects unpublished official records related to affairs of the State. – Permission required from the head of the concerned department to disclose such records. |
| Section 124 | Official Communication | – Public officers cannot be compelled to disclose official communications when it would harm the public interest. |
| Section 125 | Information as to commission of offenses | – No magistrate, police officer, or revenue officer can be compelled to reveal the source of information regarding an offense. |
| Section 126 | Professional Communication | – Protects communications between a client and their barrister, attorney, pleader, or vakil, including advice and documents related to the legal matter. – Exceptions include communication in furtherance of an illegal purpose or facts observed in the course of employment showing a crime or fraud. – No protection for information that falls into the hands of a third person, legal actions by lawyers against clients, or documents already placed on record. |
| Section 127 | Applies to interpreters, clerks, etc. | – Extends the provisions of Section 126 to interpreters and clerks or servants of legal professionals. |
| Section 128 | Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence | – Giving evidence in court does not imply consent to disclose privileged information under Section 126. Calling a legal professional as a witness implies consent only if specific questions are asked that would require the disclosure of privileged information. |
| Section 129 | Confidential communications with legal advisers | – Protects confidential communications between a person and their legal professional adviser. – Disclosure may be compelled in court if the person offers themselves as a witness and the disclosure is necessary to explain their evidence. |
Case laws on Privileged Communications
| Case | Key Points |
|---|---|
| State Of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) | – Interpretation of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding evidence as to affairs of the state. – Court’s right to demand production of documents when non-disclosure affects public interest. |
| MC Verghese v. TJ Ponnan (1970) | – Communication of defamatory content in letters claimed to be protected by marital communication privilege. – Third person’s ability to prove such communications. |
| Queen Empress v. Danoghue (1899) | – Protection of communications between spouses during marriage. – Possible exceptions when one spouse discloses the communication to a third party. |
| Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1862) | – Admissibility of a letter containing a confession to murder given by the appellant to a colleague for posting. – Role of third-party witnesses in such cases. |
| Smt. K.A. Aslam v. Union of India (2009) | – Protection of confidential communications with legal advisers under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act. – Limitations on compelling disclosure of such communications when the person offers themselves as a witness. |
