The Moral Compass of Confidentiality: A Philosophical and Legal Inquiry into Privileged Communication under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Ayush Kumar Singh,

Netaji Subhash University, Jamshedpur

“Confidentiality is a virtue of the loyal, just as loyalty is the virtue of faithfulness”

~Edwin Louis Cole

The Moral Compass of Confidentiality: A Philosophical and Legal Inquiry into Privileged Communication under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Privileged communication is not merely a statutory protection but rather serves a greater purpose of preserving trust. This trust, which is fundamentally a principle of loyalty, becomes essential in supporting justice, particularly in cases where an individual is represented by an advocate, especially when that individual is the advocate's client. Privacy of such communications as provided under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not only feasible but carries a certain degree of solemnity. It makes sure that the lawyer-client aspect of confidentiality is preserved, which safeguards the rights of the clients when they are in search of legal advice from the lawyers. But how did this philosophy get into the law? 

This is the reason for ethics and justice and pragmatism—a legal system cannot work with its actors if there is no trust to form the basis of the legal system. This is why privileged communication is not only a technicality of the procedure but it is, in fact, an epistemological and ontological stance toward justice as such.

The Legal Framework: Sections 126 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act 

In India the legal principle of privilege for communication between a lawyer and his/her client is protected by Sections 126 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These sections ensure that information is concealed from being presented to a court of law hence maintaining the confidentiality of the relationship between an advocate and his or her client.

Section 126: Professional Communications

This section bans an advocate from releasing any communications made to him or her by a client in the course of an engagement without the client’s consent. The section also includes all letters procured or any opinions given during the period of its engagement.

Section 128: Clauses which may dispense with privilege

This section provides that where the client waives the privilege of the communication by testifying in court then the advocate has no immunity in testifying about the communication in question. 

Section 129: Confidential communications with Legal Advisors

By strengthening the protection provided to the clients, this section allows the court to question the communications only when the client himself revealed it. 

The Philosophical Foundations of Privileged Communication

In simplest terms, what is confidentiality, if not a form of trust? But then what is trust – it is moral and ethical responsibility. When we refer to the privileged communication law in the context of lawyer-client we are talking about principles and deontology of Kantian imperative that is based on the duties of the individuals. In the theory of ethics, to elaborate on the concept of doing good to others, Immanuel Kant argued that a person has to be treated as a means of an end and not an end to a means. In the perspective of legal privilege this would then mean that they have to respect their client’s wishes and their right to privilege communication regardless of the impact this may entail. 

I placed Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative, under which one ought to use maxims that can be applied universally, into practice when reading the chapter on privileged communication. Suppose the society has no legal laws whereby the clients cannot rely on the discretion of their lawyers. The proposed system of care would also be ineffective but more so ethically problematic. Therefore, I conclude that privileged communication is not simply a policy and personality imperatives but it is a Kantian moral imperative as well. 

Furthermore, there is an alternative perspective on this principle which is supplied by John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. From a utilitarian point of view, privileged communication is useful for the benefit of society insofar as it helps the legal system work properly. The legal process should be able to attain the best results, which will serve the existence of society at its optimality, all as a result of clients feeling free to reveal all the truth to their lawyers without any aggression from their side. 

However, Mill’s principle of harm also has restrictions on confidentiality because an injury can be done to another person by concealing some information. Continuation of criminal acts including fraud or criminal association is unlawful thus resulting in no protection of such communication. The Indian Evidence Act aligns both moral autonomy than the greater good when it comes to the administration of justice.

Why This Philosophy Became Law

These philosophical aforesaid horns are not incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act to just mirror the philosophical thoughts about morality but to cater the real requirements of the legal atmosphere. Confidence and trust are non-negotiable tools in the mechanics of the legal process. Without them, people would be scared of going to a lawyer for legal aid while lawyers would be limited in the extent of information they can retrieve, thus giving half baked representation and even allowing wrong judgment to be made.

This codification of privilege is recognition that people who seek legal help are inherently helpless. There is always a master-servant relationship between the lawyer and the client since the latter relies on the former for legal assistance. The law then has to intervene to safeguard this kind of imbalance from exploitation.

However, it must also be remembered, for instance, by approving exceptions like the inability to claim privilege with a view to engaging in unlawful activities then there is an acknowledgement that this trust cannot be total. Indeed, the existence of law is not solely a manifestation of an individual's liberties but as a stability in society.

Case Laws Reflecting Privileged Communication

This paper also reveals how the courts have upheld privileges of communication through the following precedents. But these protections come with caveats where they stand to be outweighed by other public interest factors such as justice, order among others. 

1. M. M. Amonkar v. Dr. S. A. Johari, (1984) 1 M. L. J. 414: (1984) Bom L. R. 161

In this case, the Bombay High Court has given further fillip to the principle of privilege based upon the proposition that privileged communication can be disclosed only in case it has trenchantly facilitated an unlawful activity. It was worth noting that as much as possible the lawyer and the client should maintain faith in each other.

2. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K. K. Modi, (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 433

Regarding confidentiality, the Supreme Court in this judgment was very clear that it is essential if the clients are to be provided capable representation. This case was informative in pointing out the need to safeguard the information relayed by the client, since they are the only ones who believe in a lawyer’s ability to make justice prevail. 

3. J. R. Desai v. State of Maharashtra 2002 CriLJ 3466 (Bom)

This judgment laid down that an order of dismissal could be passed if the employee is guilty of misconduct in relation to his/her duties.

Here the court establishes some difference between legal message passing and passing of message with an aim of promoting illegality. The judgment simply means that communications for the purpose of furthering what is unlawful or fraudulent cannot be privileged.

4. Balasubramaniam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 930

This case pointed out that privileged communication cannot include communications made with the purpose of iIllegal act. The Supreme Court opined that although the legal counsel requires confidentiality it cannot be used as disguise for crime.

5. Ratan Tata v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 329

The present case is an important one in which the Supreme Court of India dealt with the right to privacy while dealing with privileged communication. While the case was mainly about general privacy issues, the identification of confidential communication as a substantive right, was emphasized in the judgment.

Conclusion: Balancing Autonomy and Justice

It is therefore not only a legal requirement to uphold Privileged communication under the Indian Evidence Act but it is a moral virtue enhancing the already philosophical principles of the legal profession focusing on the rights of the individual, confidentiality and the welfare of the public good. Through such wording of this protection, the law recognizes the fact that those dealing with the judicial system are equally helpless and provide for their protection.

However, the law also appreciates that the said privilege has to be accompanied by the need to uphold law and order as well as ensure that justice prevails. Privilege cannot be used as a shield for an illegal activity. Therefore, we can say that the Indian Evidence Act, while protecting the right to privacy of the individual, helps foster justice for the society.

The legal protection could be said, however, to be motivated by a philosophy of justice that is not limited to the procedural application of the law, but is an ethical obligation to respect the liberty of each person. I would say this is at the base of any civilizational ethos, where fundamental human reality means that men and women are committed to truth and justice, not just law, but law incarnate in human relationship.

REFERENCES:

1. Legal Sources:

1. The Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, India Code (1872), §§ 126-129.

2. Case Laws

1. M.M. Amonkar v. Dr. S.A. Johari, AIR 1984 Bom 161. 

2. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, AIR 2006 SC 1647 (India).

3. J.R. Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 CriLJ 3466 (Bom). 

4. Balasubramaniam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1999 SC 930. 

5. Ratan Tata v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 329. 

3. Philosophical References

1. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Mary Gregor ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1998) (1785).

2. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (George Sher ed., Hackett Publ'g Co. 1979) (1863).

4. Additional Legal and Philosophical Texts:

1. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Penelope A. Bulloch & Joseph Raz eds., 2d ed. 1994).

2. Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law (Yale Univ. Press, rev. ed. 1969).