Compelling Advocate To Disclose Source Of Documents Violates Section 126 Of Evidence Act: Delhi High Court
An order had directed the advocates representing McDonald’s to file personal affidavits disclosing the “source” of certain documents placed before a revisional court.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an advocate cannot be compelled to disclose the source of documents provided by a client, as such information falls squarely within the ambit of privileged communication between a lawyer and a client. This privilege can only be breached if there is a prima facie judicial finding that the advocate was involved in or had knowledge of a fraud.
These observations were made while setting aside an order that had directed the advocates representing McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. to file personal affidavits disclosing the “source” of certain documents placed before a revisional court.
A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasised that compelling a lawyer to reveal how or from whom a document was obtained would amount to forcing disclosure of privileged communication, which is expressly protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court clarified that the primary responsibility for the authenticity and filing of documents before a court lies with the party to the proceedings, namely the client. It added, “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 of Indian Evidence Act. Such documents filed by the Counsel are at the behest of the client and for and on his behalf.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the Petitioner and ASC Amol Sinha appeared for the Respondents.
The High Court found that the impugned direction violated the statutory lawyer-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court noted that the trial court’s order effectively compelled the advocates to breach their professional duty of confidentiality, which clearly falls within the scope of “communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment” as protected by law.
The Court further held, “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 also pointed out that the exception to advocate-client privilege in cases of fraud had not been established even at a prima facie level. On the contrary, there was a plausible explanation on record regarding service of the documents in Company Law Board (CLB) proceedings, which further weakened the justification for piercing the privilege.
The Court held, “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.”
Cause Title: Mcdonalds India Ltd v. State of NCT Of Delhi & Anr., [2026:DHC:228]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates Stuti Gujral, Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Tasnimul Hassan, Priti Verma, Vipin Kumar
Respondents: Advocates Amol Sinha, Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan, Chavi Lazarus, Manan Wadhwa, Luv Mahajan.
Click here to read/download Judgment
