The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that advocates cannot be forced to reveal the source of documents filed for their clients, as it violates the attorney-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. The ruling strengthens professional confidentiality and protects independent legal representation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reinforcing attorney-client privilege, the Delhi High Court has held that courts cannot compel advocates to disclose the source of documents filed on behalf of their clients. The judgment, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on January 12, 2026, emphasizes that such directions violate Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), which protects professional communications between a lawyer and their client.
This decision came in a petition filed by McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd., challenging an order passed by a Sessions Court that had directed its lawyers to file personal affidavits disclosing how certain documents came into their possession.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from criminal proceedings initiated by a complainant against McDonald’s India and others, alleging multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code. During revision proceedings before the Sessions Court, McDonald’s filed copies of two applications originally made in 2011 in another forum, to demonstrate that there was no urgency justifying search and seizure orders passed by the trial court.
The complainant objected, alleging that these documents were:
- Illegally obtained,
- Surreptitiously placed on record, or
- Possibly leaked from police or court records.
On this basis, the Sessions Court directed McDonald’s lawyers to file personal affidavits stating:
- The date and time when the documents were filed, and
- The “source” from which the documents were obtained.
This direction was challenged before the Delhi High Court.
Legal Issue
The main question before the High Court was:
Can a court compel advocates to disclose the source of documents filed on behalf of their client?
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna answered this in the negative.
Court’s Observation
Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes that:
No advocate shall be permitted, without the client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to them during professional employment, or the contents or condition of any document they became acquainted with in such employment.
ALSO READ: Failed to Secure Qualifying Marks, Cannot Question Selection Process: Madras High Court
The Court explained that when a client hands over any document to their lawyer for legal defence, both the act of handing over the document and the information relating to its origin form an integral part of professional communication and are protected under attorney-client privilege.
Justice Krishna observed:
“To compel an advocate to disclose that ‘Client X gave me this document’ is to compel the disclosure of the ‘source’ of the documents, which is protected by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The Court further clarified that:
- The primary responsibility for documents filed in court lies with the party (client), not the advocate.
- Advocates act only as professional representatives, filing documents on the client’s instructions.
The complainant contended that the protection under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act is not absolute and that its proviso becomes applicable where the communication between a client and an advocate is made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, or where the advocate becomes aware of facts indicating that a crime or fraud has been committed after the commencement of his or her professional engagement. In such situations, it was argued, the shield of attorney-client privilege stands lifted.
However, the Court held that:
- The fraud exception is not automatic.
- There must be prima facie material showing that the communication itself was for an illegal purpose.
- Mere allegations that documents were illegally obtained are insufficient.
Justice Krishna noted that McDonald’s had provided a plausible explanation, and the documents were served upon them earlier during the Company Law Board proceedings in 2013. This rebutted the claim of theft or illegal procurement.
While courts have wide powers to protect the purity of judicial proceedings, the High Court clarified:
“While the Court can ask for the truth, it cannot compel a lawyer to disclose what the law expressly protects.”
Attorney-client privilege is not overridden merely because a court is seeking information. Only when there is prima facie evidence of fraud involving the advocate can the protection be lifted.
The Delhi High Court:
- Quashed the Sessions Court order dated May 20, 2017,
- Set aside the consequential order issuing notice to the advocates, and
- Held that advocates cannot be compelled to disclose the source of documents filed on behalf of their clients.
Appearance:
McDonald’s: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal and advocates Stuti Gujral, Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Tasnimul Hassan, Priti Verma and Vipin Kumar
State: Advocates Amol Sinha, Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan, Chavi Lazarus, Manan Wadhwa and Luv Mahajan.
Case Title:
McDonalds India Ltd v State of NCT of Delhi
W.P.(CRL) 2294/2017, CRL.M.A. 12975/2017, CRL.M.A. 13878/2017
READ JUDGMENT
