Advocate-Client Privilege Excludes non-Confidential Information

Case title:

Sumith v. Sebastian and Another

Date of Order:

December 13,2023

Bench:

 Justice A.M. Babu

Parties 

•Petitioner: Sumith
•Respondents: Sebastian and Another

SUBJECT :

This particular case is concerning whether the advocate-client privilege covers the disclosing of a client’s whereabouts or not.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS 

1. Section 126 Indian Evidence Act- This Act protects privileged and confidential information between a client and an advocate, exchanged for the purpose of legal advisory or proceedings.
2. This privilege is not applicable to non-confidential information, like the whereabouts of a client.

OVERVIEW 

The Kerala High Court in the case of Sumith v. Sebastian and Another (2023) elucidated on the matter that advocate-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable only to the confidential communications made for legal advice or proceedings. The court held that non-confidential information, such as a client’s whereabouts, does not fall under this privilege, reaffirming that it cannot be used to obstruct justice.

ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether or not advocate-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act safeguards the exposure of a client’s whereabouts.
2. Whether non-confidential information communicated with an advocate falls within the extent of advocate-client privilege.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

1. The appellant contended that disclosing the client’s whereabouts would violate Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which safeguards communications between an advocate and their client.
2. It was contended that all information communicated with an advocate, containing general details like the client’s whereabouts, is protected under advocate-client privilege.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT 

1. The respondent argued that the client’s whereabouts do not constitute confidential communication protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Advocate-client privilege pertains only to information shared in confidence for legal advice or proceedings, and general information like location is outside its capacity.
3. The respondent emphasised that privilege cannot be utilized to obstruct justice or withhold non-confidential information.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS 

The Kerala High Court, in Sumith v. Sebastian and Another (2023), elucidated the spectrum of advocate-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court held that privilege defends only confidential communications shared between an advocate and client for legal guidance or proceedings. It does not expand to non-confidential information, such as the client’s whereabouts. The court emphasised that advocates must balance their duty to safeguard client confidentiality with their obligation to the court and justice. Permitting privilege to cover general data would obstruct justice and thus, the advocate was required to disclose the client’s location.

CONCLUSION

The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Sumith v. Sebastian and Another supports the limited scope of advocate-client privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It explains that privilege applies only to confidential communications made for legal advice or proceedings and excludes any of the  non-confidential information, such as a client’s whereabouts. By striking a balance between an advocate’s duty to their client and their obligation to the court, the decision makes sure that privilege is not misused in order to obstruct justice, while upholding the integrity of the legal proceedings.