In a significant ruling on lawyer–client confidentiality, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order that required lawyers representing McDonald’s India to disclose the source of documents filed during criminal proceedings. The court held that forcing advocates to reveal such information would breach the legally protected privilege between a client and their counsel.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, bringing relief to the company and its legal team nearly nine years after the dispute began
Background of the Case
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by Deepak Khosla against McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. and others. The complaint alleged serious offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and conspiracy.
During the proceedings, a magistrate had allowed search and seizure operations at the company’s premises. McDonald’s challenged this order before a sessions court, placing on record copies of two applications originally filed by the complainant in 2011. These documents were cited to argue that there was no urgency justifying such intrusive steps.
The sessions court granted an interim stay on the search. Soon after, the complainant moved an application alleging that the documents were illegally obtained and had been secretly introduced into the court record.
Controversial Direction Against Advocates
Acting on these allegations, the sessions court passed an order directing the company’s advocates to file personal affidavits. The lawyers were asked to disclose when the documents were filed and, crucially, the “source” from which they had obtained them.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses Arrest Protection to Lawyer Accused of Rape Despite Settlement Claims
This move triggered sharp objections. McDonald’s approached the High Court, arguing that the order violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination and breached Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which safeguards confidential communications between a lawyer and client.
The company maintained that the documents were lawfully in its possession, having been served during earlier proceedings before the Company Law Board in 2013.
Court’s Observations
The High Court framed the core question clearly: can a court compel an advocate to disclose the source of documents given by a client?
Answering in the negative, the bench underscored the importance of professional privilege. The court observed that when a client hands over documents to a lawyer for legal defence, both the act of handing over and the information about their origin form part of protected communication.
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions West Bengal Voter Roll Revision, Seeks Unified Reply from Election Commission
“The responsibility for documents filed in court lies with the party,” the bench observed, adding that compelling an advocate to state how or from whom a document was received would amount to forcing disclosure of privileged communication.
The judge also rejected the argument that lawyers, as officers of the court, enjoy “no privilege against the court.” While courts are empowered to safeguard the purity of judicial proceedings, that power does not extend to piercing confidentiality without clear, prima facie evidence of fraud or illegality.
No Prima Facie Case of Fraud
The complainant had argued that the documents might have been stolen from court or police records, invoking the fraud exception under the Evidence Act. The High Court, however, found no material to support this claim.
It noted that McDonald’s had offered a plausible explanation for possessing the documents, pointing to their service during earlier corporate litigation.
Read also:- Jharkhand High Court Grants Divorce to Wife, Calls Blackmail Using Private Photos ‘Mental Cruelty’
“The exception of fraud was not prima facie established,” the court held, making it clear that mere suspicion cannot justify compelling lawyers to breach their professional duty.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court quashed the sessions court’s order directing the advocates to file affidavits disclosing the source of documents. All consequential proceedings, including notices issued for alleged non-compliance, were also set aside.
With this, the court reaffirmed that lawyer–client privilege remains a cornerstone of the justice system and cannot be diluted without strong and specific grounds.
Case Title:- McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
