Official communications
Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with official communications. No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
Section 124, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 130 Official communications Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 60
- Administrative Tribunals Act s. 22 Procedure and powers of Tribunals
- Air Force Act s. 135 Documents exempted from production
- Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act s. 29 Procedure and powers of Appellate Tribunal
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands Cooperative Socities Regulation 1973 s. 87 Repeal and savings
- Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act s. 111 Procedure before Appellate Tribunal
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act s. 14 Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters
- Army Act s. 136 Documents exempted from production
- Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act s. 111
- Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act s. 111 Procedure before Appellate Tribunal
- Assam Goods and Services Tax Act s. 111
- Assam Rifles Act s. 112 Documents exempted from production
- Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act s. 234
and 48 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sumathi Ravichandran vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Sanction files containing confidential communications between government departments and authorities are privileged documents under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. An accused person does not have the right to peruse such privileged sanction files, even for purposes of mounting an effective defense. However, the trial court may examine the sanction file to satisfy itself that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the facts placed before it. This approach balances the accused's right to fair trial with the state's legitimate interest in protecting confidential government communications relating to affairs of state.
On this section: Official communications; applied to hold that disclosure of sanction file communications would suffer public interest as they were made in official confidence
-
Punjab Agircultural Univ. vs Kuldip Chand Bhargav
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Confidential official records of a public institution, including orders of administrative heads, recommendations of senior officers, legal advice from institutional legal advisors, and internal correspondence relating to employment matters, are protected from disclosure under Sections 123, 124, and 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such protection is necessary for the proper functioning of public institutions and cannot be overridden by a trial court's order to produce these documents in civil litigation, even when the documents may be relevant to the case.
On this section: Official communications - No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made in official confidence when public interest would suffer by disclosure. Applied to protect internal communications and recommendations.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed— (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. 160. Police officer's power to require attendance of …
-
… Referring to Para 18.17 of Chapter 18 of the CBI Crime Manual 2020, learned SPP contends that privilege can be claimed by CBI under Section 124 Indian Evidence Act, for production of FR-I, FR-II and CBI Report when called by the Court. It is urged that reference has not been made by learned Special Judge to aforesaid provisions. Permission is stated to have been duly obtained during the course of investigation by CBI from the learned Special Judge for …
-
… The Ld. Special Judge has himself held that the interception order had been reviewed by the Review Committee and nothing adverse had been found. - 24. The Ld. Special Judge failed to consider that the request letters/communications are privileged communications being barred under section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( "Act of 1872" ). A duly sworn affidavit of Director, CBI was filed wherein it was mentioned that the process adopted for obtaining the orders of interception of mobile number of Paritosh Kumar Praveen was completely internal and top-secret matter of the Department. Only the orders …
Questions about Section 124
What have the courts held on Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Sumathi Ravichandran vs The Inspector of Police (05 Mar 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Official communications; applied to hold that disclosure of sanction file communications would suffer public interest as they were made in official confidence. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2007 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 124, section 124 IEA, section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sumathi Ravichandran vs The Inspector of Police (05 Mar 2013).
What should I read with Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
60 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 130 (Official communications), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 124, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.