PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATION
Submitted To : Mr. Jasdeep Sir
Submitted By : Sejal Nanda
07113403820
 INTRODUCTION
 Evidence is an essential part of a trial as it is used to
establish any relevant fact and reach a conclusion.
Evidence can be in many forms; witness testimony is
one of them. A witness can testify based on any event
they have seen or any communication they have heard
or been a part of.

 However, some conversations do not need to be

disclosed, even if required during a trial. Such
conversations are known as privileged communications.
These communications can be privileged because of
personal or professional reasons.
 Spousal Communications
 The communications between a husband
and a wife have been given the status of
privileged communication under  laid down that mere doing of an act in the
Section 122 of the Evidence Act. It states
that a married person:
• Shall not be compelled to disclose any
communication made to them during the
marriage by their spouse or ex-spouse.
• They are not permitted to disclose
anything without their spouse’s or ex-
spouse’s consent even if they are willing
to.
 In the case of  information can be disclosed if:
S.J Choudhary v. The State, the Court
held that compelling spouses to disclose
their private communications is far worse
than not getting any information at all.
Therefore, such communications must be
privileged.
In the case of Ram Bharosey
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court
presence of the spouse can not be
considered as communication between
them. Communication must be conveyed
in some way; be it verbal, or non verbal.
 The privilege provided under Section 122 is
for the welfare of the marital bond shared
between spouses and for protecting their
families.
 However, this privilege is not absolute and
• The person who made such communication or
their representative gives free consent; or
• There is a suit between a married couple; or
• One of the spouses has been prosecuted for
any crime committed against the other.
 Professional Privileges
 Section 126 of the Act says that
– no barrister, attorney, pleader
or vakil is permitted to disclose
any communication made to
him by his client during the
course and for the purpose of
his employment without the
consent of his client.
 The privilege under this Section
is applicable to anyone who is
registered as a legal practitioner
in India and falls under the
aforementioned categories,
which simply means an
advocate.
Similar to Spousal Privileges,
this privilege is not absolute.
The Act itself states that this
privilege does not apply under
some conditions.
Communication in furtherance
of an illegal purpose could be
one example of the same. 
 In the case of Maneka
Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani,
the Court observed that
everyone has the right to a
fair trial, and for obtaining
such right one might need to
seek help from an attorney.
 State Privileges
 Section 123 of The Indian Evidence Act states that no
person is allowed to give any evidence that may be
derived from any unpublished records of any state
affairs.
 Unless with the permission of the officer-in-charge or
the head officer at the concerned department.

 In the case of Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd, it

was held that in case such a situation arises, the Court
is bound to accept the decision of the public-officer
without any questions.
 Other Privileges
Official Communications
Section 124 of the Evidence Act talks about official
communications. It states that a public officer can not be
compelled to disclose any communication made to him in
official confidence if he believes that such disclosure could
harm the public interests

Secret Informants
Section 125 of the Evidence Act states that a Magistrate or a
Police Officer can not be compelled to reveal as to how they
got any information regarding the commission of a crime. 
 Conclusion
 The intention behind giving such privilege to some communications
is to protect the public. Be it regarding the safeguarding of their
marriage or preventing government information from getting leaked.
 In the absence of this Act, multiple classified information could have
been easily leaked in the name of trial and could have compromised
the security of the country.
 Also, letting a husband or a wife testify against the other would
make people lose trust over marital bonds and disrupt peace among
families. It would start family broils, that could have the capacity to
destroy families.

 This Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a wholesome act and the laws
regarding privilege communications are up to par and have been
legislated keeping public welfare in mind.
THANK YOU!