Professional communications
Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with professional communications. No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’ sex press 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 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’ sex press 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:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure –– (1) any such communication made in furtherance of any [illegal] purpose, (2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, [pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.
Explanation. –– The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased. Illustrations (a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney –– “I have committed forgery and I wish you to defend me.” As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.
(b) A, a client, says to B, an attorney –– “I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue.” This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.
(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A’s account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure.
Section 126, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 132 Professional communications Close, with changes 83%
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.
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.
-
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: Professional communications - Protects communications between professional advisors and clients from disclosure. Applied to protect legal advice obtained by the university from its legal advisor.
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.
Questions about Section 126
What have the courts held on Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Punjab Agircultural Univ. vs Kuldip Chand Bhargav (20 Mar 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Professional communications - Protects communications between professional advisors and clients from disclosure. Applied to protect legal advice obtained by the university from its legal advisor.
How do I find court cases under Section 126 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 126, section 126 IEA, section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Punjab Agircultural Univ. vs Kuldip Chand Bhargav (20 Mar 2007).
What should I read with Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 132 (Professional communications), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 126, 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.