The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the sanctity of advocate–client privilege by holding that a court cannot compel a lawyer to disclose the source of documents filed on a client’s instructions. Emphasising the protection under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court ruled that responsibility for documents placed on record lies with the litigating party and not the advocate. Unless a prima facie case of fraud involving the advocate is established, any direction requiring lawyers to reveal how or from whom documents were obtained would amount to an impermissible breach of professional confidentiality.
Case Title
McDonald’s India Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Delivered by: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court.
Factual Background
- In revision proceedings before a revisional court (arising from a criminal complaint by one Deepak Khosla), McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. relied upon two applications from 2011 to secure a stay against directions for search and seizure.
- The trial court ordered the advocates for McDonald’s to file personal affidavits disclosing the “source” of those documents—i.e., explaining how they were obtained.
Legal Issue
Whether a court can compel an advocate to reveal the source of documents provided by a client and filed in court on the client’s instructions.
Court’s Holding
The Delhi High Court set aside the order compelling advocates to disclose the source, holding that:
- Legal Privilege under Section 126, Indian Evidence Act
- Communication and documents provided by a client to an advocate are covered by advocate-client privilege under Section 126 IEA (privileged communication).
- Compelling disclosure of the origin of such documents is akin to forcing a lawyer to reveal privileged communication.
- Primary Responsibility Lies with the Client
- The responsibility for the documents filed in court lies with the party (client), not the advocate.
- Forcing an advocate to disclose that a client gave them a document amounts to disclosing the source and breaches privilege.
- Exception (Fraud) Not Prima Facie Established
- The only recognised exception to privilege is where there is a prima facie finding of fraud involving the advocate in furtherance of a fraudulent act in the course of employment.
- In this case, no such prima facie fraud had been established to justify piercing the privilege.
- Court’s Power vs. Privilege Protection
- While courts can and should seek the truth, they cannot compel disclosure that the law (Section 126 IEA) expressly protects unless exception conditions (e.g., fraud) are met.
Key Legal Principle
An advocate cannot be compelled to reveal the source of documents provided by the client and filed in court on the client’s instructions, as doing so would violate advocate-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, absent a prima facie finding of fraud.
Significance of the Judgment
- Reinforces the sanctity of advocate-client confidentiality in litigation.
- Clarifies that an advocate’s professional duty and privilege protect not just advice but also non-verbal acts related to client instructions, such as filing documents.
-
Limits courts from over-reaching into privileged communications without strong, fraud-based justification.