Brief facts of the case :The facts of the case state that victim Ronit, a laboratory technician, was

25 years of age at the

time when he was run down by a black audi car on the midnight of may 9 th 2012. His body was
dragged 60 feet. But the significant fact of the case ir related to the identity of the accused, which
is unknown to the authority, the same is impeding the proceedings of trials towards the course of
justice.
Parents of Ronit want from advocate Mr. Shyam Tripathi to disclose the identity of his client but
he decline to disclose the identity as his client told to his not to disclose his identity rather initiate
the proceeding of plea bargaining. The reason accorded by Mr. Shyam is that he is protected
under section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and he cannot be compelled to testify in the court
regarding the identity of his client.
Issue :- Whether or not the identity of the client stated to advocate is coming under the
confidential or privilege communication which is protected under 126 of the Indian
Evidence Act

Privilege communication:First of all it is necessary to throw some light on the what the privilege communications consists
of. The base of the privilege communication is to give a secrecy to the attorney client
relationship so that the clients without fear discusses the facts with his attorney without fear from
legal punishment. A privileged communication is a private statement that must be kept in
confidence by the recipient for the benefit of the communicator. Even if it is relevant to a case, a
privileged communication cannot be used as evidence in court. Privileged communications are
controversial because they exclude relevant facts from the truth-seeking process. If such type of
communications were not protected, nobody will be willing to consult the professional adviser
either to enforce his right or with a view to his defense.
The Attorney-Client Privilege exists for roughly the same reason as the physician-patient
privilege. In order to secure effective representation, a client must feel free to discuss all aspects
of a case without the fear that her attorney will be called at trial to repeat her statements.

Likewise, to retain the client's trust and do his job properly, the attorney must be allowed to
withhold from the court and opposing party private communications with the client. It has been
observed that a sound system of the administration of justice should possess three ingredients,
namely a well planned body of law based on wise concepts of social justice, a judicial hierarchy
comprised of the Bench and the Bar, learned in the law and inspired by high principles of
professional conduct and existence of suitable generation to ensure fair trial1.
According to section 126 of Indian Evidence Act 1872,- No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil
shall at any time be permitted, unless with his clients express consent, to disclose any
communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such
barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or
condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the
purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in
the course and for the purpose of such employment:
There are certain exceptions to this rule. This Section does not protect from disclosure:
1. any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;
2. any fact observed in the course of employment showing that any crime or fraud has been
committed since the commencement of the employment.
The rule of privilege as contained under the section 126 has been stated by wignor as

When any kind of legal advice is sought

It is asked from a professional legal advisor and in his capacity as such
Communication must strictly be limited to that purpose
Made in confidence of secrecy
By his client
From tany disclosure by the legal advisor without his permission
Thus the issue in the present case is whether the identity of the client is covered under
rule of privilege.

Present case:-

1 C.L. Anand, General Principles of Legal Ethics, pg. 39

In such kind of cases the position of the courts is not clear that whether it would the
identity of the client will be coming under the privilege communications. This is being
illustrated in the following cases related to us and Indian courts.

In United state v. Pape2 the court held that attorney client privilege prevents
disclosure of the statements made under confidentiality to an attorney at the same
time court stated that the identity of the client fall outside the scope of this
privilege. In another case the coust has stated that neither the fees arrangement of
the attorney with his clients, nor the identity of the client is confidential which
would be protected by privilege communication.

Yet in another case of Baird v. Korner3 the court has put pressure on the purpose
of the enactment which is to encourage the litigants to communicate freely and
frankly with their attorney, without any fear of disclosure to the court and if any
rules conflict with the purpose of the rule to privilege then it must be discarded.

Thus the status of the court in US is not yet decided on the issue and the position is
same in India as in : Framji Bhikaji V MohansinghDdhansingh, at an interview between a solicitor
and a client, the solicitor took down a certain statements made by a person named
A,B who was in his clients company and whose name was communicated to him
in the course and for the purpose of professional employment. A,B was
afterwards tried for defamation. At the trial the solicitor was called as a witness
for the procecution and was asked the name of his client and the name of the
person who accompanied the client and made a statement to him. The solicitor
decline to answer all the question on ground of privilege communication. It was
held by the court that the solicitor was bound to disclose the name of the client as
well as the of the person accompanied the client.4
2

144 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1944)

279 F.2d 623

4 (1893) 18 Bom 263.

Opinion and conclusion:1.) THE RULE OF PROCEDURLA FAIRNESS :- Rights are sometimes hidden in
procedure5 and if at all the attorney discloses the name of his client it would violate
the right of the accused accorded to him by the statute and lapse of procedural
fairness. In deciding the case procedure plays a important role and must be followed
regardless of what the end would be. The principle of procedural fairness has been
held good by the court and must try and do it.
2.) LEGISLATIVE INTENT:- legislature has enacted the section regarding the privilege
communications to provide a platform, free from all prejudices, where a client freely
discusses with his attorney and seek his professional advice, the rule of the privilege
must extend to such a standard where it does not conflict with the purpose of the
statute. Where as in the section it is written any communication which according to
me would include even the identity as if at all legislature wanted to keep the identity
of the client out of its purview it must have put in into exceptions. Whereas the said
disclosure asked by the parents of the rohit is clearly against the legislative intent.
In the present hit and run case if advocate Mr. Shyam Tripathi compelled to disclose the identity
that is the name his client then it would amount to breach of confidentiality which a client has
put on his attorney as it would lead to threat to their proffession. The rule of privilege must
extend to give the protection to the identity of the accused, if disclosing the same would violate
the above said two opinion. Thus if he gives the identity of his client and the same is made as
precedent then every single client would fear to visit a legal advisor to take his advice
Hence in my opinion it is necessary to privilege the identity of client under privilege
communication and must not be disclosed

5 Bharat barrel & drum mfg.co.ltd v. ESI Corp(1971)