1 1 4 816 P 4 9 CWP NO10525 OF2008 1 C2 INTtlE flIGM COURl OF PUNJAB AND UARYANA AT ee CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION8112009 DrKaramjitSingh Petitioner 1C VERSUS fl Statcof Punjab 8 Othcrs 2esp0ndents 0 I CAO I CORAM Z llONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOIlLl r PRESENT MrCSharma Advocate for thc pctitioncr I MrChetan Mittal AddlAG Punjab 06 MiAnupalnGuptaAdvocatc for rcspondent noA W2 MrAkshayBhan Advocatc for no 0 7 Z MrIlS Hooda AG Haryanawith r Singh13asuAAG Haryana MrJaivir Yadav Advocate Ior StateI3arCouncil MtAjayKaushik Ccntral StandingCounsel for UOI C Permod Kohli J Thc petitionerIS a doctor postedln Ccnlral Jail Patiala I lc has lhe legalityand validityof order datcd 552008 Annexure P239 placinghitn under suspcnsionallcgcdly pursuantto a communlcatton of respondent no a Law Ofllcer workingas Scnior Contact: Location: DELHI Reason: AUTHENTICA Date: 2014.01.23 20:58 Digitally signed by N C Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 817 C Lt CWP NO10525 OF 2008 2 1 Advocate General Punjabin the ofOce of Advocate General He has also assailed the opinionof the Board of Doctors of the PGIMER dalcd 1532008 in rcspcctof onc Narinder Kumar SOll of Dharain Kulnar an accusedlodgedin thc Ccntral Jail as an undcr trialfor commission of offences under Sections3021307read with Scction 34 IPC While allegingmotives to no3 a aw Ofllcer has 1 0 placed on rccord copiesof certalll colnmunicationsaddrcsscdby 0 no to functionaries of the Statc in his capacity as hc was C I to representhe Statein a casc CrM1s11103746 of 2008 Sled by C5 Jai Kshan for cancellation of bail of the Copiesof thesc I COllllllUnlcations froin no to SCAsthana SSP Patiala Z Mohainmad Izhar Alam IPS Additional Director General ofPolice Punjab m r are AnnexuresI1 911 P 1912 0 P913 During I thc course of thc hearingof this writ petitiona Honblc Division Bcnch of 08 this Court while noticingthc aforcsaid communications between thc v counscland the functionariesof thc State Clientlwas of thc opinionthat Z such communications are privilegedundcr thc provisions of thc Indian 15videnccAct1872 and accordingly vidc orderdatcd 8122008invitcd a dcbateon thc qucstionof privilegeVidc aforcsaid order datcd 8 122008 thc Ilonble Division Bench issued noticc to thc Advocatc Gcnerals for the States of Punjaband HaryanaAssistant Solicitor General Union of India Senior Standing Counsel Ull ChandigarhChairlnan 13al7Council of Punjaband Haryanaand President High Court Bar Association Ordcr dated8122008 is as under lt appearsfrom the rival submissionsthat Scnior IOeputyAdvocate Gencral Punjab Shri Anil Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 818 Lr CWP NO0525 OF 2008 3 0 Sharmaaddressed a Ietter to inform his client Stateof Punjababout the Court of a case pending in this Court That cominunicatlon to be in thc naturc of a onc whichwould be protccted under the provisions of Evidence Act the aforesaid prOV1Slons hcrein has 0 Mrharma as a partyand also placedon rccord the C I aforcsaidcommunication to altribute mala fide to 0 him and to earn an order for revocation of his Iearned counscl for petitioner Z submittcdthat a copy of said lettcr was received undertheprovisions ofRightto Infonnation Act I Let a notice issue to learned Advocate 05 Generalsfor thc Slates of Punjaband llaryana W2 Assistant Solicitor General Union of India Senior Z Standing Counsel lJT Chairman Bar Om Council of Punjaband Haryanaand President l IighCourt Bar Association for 23 22008 to answer as to whethcr in vicw of thc provisions of Cee Right to Information Act protectlongranted Ill regardto communication between counsel and clicnt underEvidence Act hasstood ae Pursuanltothe aforcsaid ordcrofllonblc Division I3cnchlhc matter bcingtransferredto SingleBench on alncndmentofthe Rules ofthe Puniab and 14aryana HighCourt was heardby me There are threecommunications Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 819 J2 CWP NO10525 OF 2008 4 t9 on record 0 frolll no Shri Ani l Kuinar Sharma Advocate Gencral Slatc of Punjab addressed to of Policc and Additional Dircctor Gcncral of Police vely lc petitioncr haspanicularly takcn cxccption to lctter datcd 28A008 the Law Officer rcferredto thc Court ofthe CrMisclVo746of 2008 held on 242008 hc relcvant parl ofthe lcttcr 1 r datcd 28008 Anncxurc P19131wluch has invitcd thc objectioncIfthe 0 rcadsas undcr 0 I 44 TheHonble Court duringthe course of C ofthe case took scrious vicwfthe matter and observed I tllatthc Stateshould ensure that thcsc typeof lapses are Z not repeatedand appropriateaction be takcn on the r administrativeside 99 I MrCSharma Iearned counscl for lhe petitioncrhas allcgedln 05 20 and 33 ofthe writ petition that thc Icttersdo not reprcscnthe 7 true court and has been procurcdby Jai Krishan Z in thc case who belongs to the Ruling Party ShiromaniAkali Dal whercas 0m thcpctitionersbrothcrinaw has becn closed to theCongrcssGovcrninent duringCongrcssRule in Punjabllowcver without goingto the merit ofthe for the purposeof the considerationof thc issuc raised by the C I Ionble Division I3cnchvide order dated 8 122008 1 examine thc queslion of thc Privilege of the coinmunication between the counsel and the clienl Section 126ofthe Indian Evidence Act which falls underChapterTX of Witnesscs dcals with thc coininunication which is herc under Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 320 Jl CWP NO0525 OF 2008 5 V 126 Professional communications No barrister attorney pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted unless with his clients express consent to disclose any communication made to him in the course and forthee purpose of his employmentas such barrister 1 pleader attorney or vakil by or on behalf of his client or to state the contents or condition of any docu ment with which he has become acquaintedin the course and for the purpose of his professionalemployment or to disclose 0 any advice given by him to his client in 0 the course and for the purpose of such I employment 0 Provided that nothing in this section I shall protectfrom disclosure 1 Any communation made in Z furtherance of any illegalpurpose 2Any factobserved by any barrister C pleaderattorney or vakil in the course of his employmentas such showi ng that I anycrime or fraud has been committed 08 since the commencement of his employment It is immaterial whether the attention of 7 such barrister pleader attorney or vakil Z wasor was not directed to such fact by Ll or on behalf of his client Explanation The obligationstated in this section continues after the employmenthas ceased Illustrations eeeo a1 A a client says to 8 an attorney I have committed forgery and I wish you to defend me Il As the defense of a man known to be guilty IS not a criminai purpose this communication IS protected from disclosure b A a client says to B and attorney I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of forged deed on which I request you to Il sue Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 321 C d A CWP NOJ0525 OF 2008 6 Y The communication being made in furtherance of criminal purpose is not protectedfrom disclosure cJ A being chargedwith embezzlement retains B an attorneyto defend himIn the course of the proceedings B observes that an entry has been made in As 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 0 course of his employmentshowingthat 0 a fraud has been committed since the I commencement of the proceedingsit IS 0 not protectedfrom disclosure Il I Guptalcarned counscl forll addrcssed Z thc Court on thc questionof privilegcat Icngthtracingthc historyof C Privilcgcundcr Englishlaw and the objectpurportand its necessity and as partofthe acccss tojusticcIt is contendedthat theprivilcgc 9 08 undcr Section 126ofthc Evidencc Act is for thc largcrpublic interestto proteclthe clienl as also theprofessionWhile tracingthehistoiy 7 Z of privilcgea reference is madc to A Treatise on the AngloeAmericiin aa System 0Evidence in Trials at Common Law byJohn Ilenry Wigmore Prfessor41the Law 4f Evidence in the Law School I Nwthwesrn UniversioThird Edition Vol8 as underl History of the Privilcgc Thc historyof this C2 privilcgegocs back to thc rcign of Elizabcth where the privilcgc alrcady appears as lt 1S therefore the oldest of thc privileges for confidcnlial communicatlollSe 15 The doctrine howcver undcrwent changeand dilutcd under certain situationsas observed in the A Treatise Oll the System ofEvidence in Trials at Common LausupraJ as under That doctrine howcvcr Onallylost groundand Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 322 CWP NO10525 OF 2008 7 1 bythe Iastquarterof the 1700s as alreadynoticed wasentire The judicialsearch Ilortruth couldnot endurc to bc obstructedby a voluntary pIcdge of sccrccy nor was there any lnoral delinquencyOr public odiuin in brcakingoncs pledge under forcc ofthe law With thc passagc of timc thc privilcgeas ln lts 0 howevcr underwent furthcr evolution and by the latter part of 0 I thc 1700s thc naturc ofprivilegevvaslikc this C5 Policy of the Privilege The policy of the I privilege has bccn plainly groundedsincc thc Z lattcr part of thc 1700s on subjcctive tr considcrations In order to promotefrccdom of I consultation of legal adviscrs by clients the 08 of colnpellcddisclosurc by tlle IegaJ 7 advisersinust be removcd and hencethe law tnust Z prohibitsuch disclosure except on the cliens nW Such is the inodcrn theory 25 consent llhc objcctand purportof this Privilcge cameto bc consideredby somedecisionsofthosc daysl Ca 1 833 LC Broughalnin v Gaskell l Myl 8 K 98 103 hc foundation ofthis rule IS not difficult to discover It is not as has sometilnes bcen saidlon account of any particular which the Iaw attributcs to the busincss of lcgal profcssorsor any particulardispositionto afford Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 323 9 V CWP NO0525 OF 2008 8 4 thein houghcertainlyit may not be very easy to discover why a like privilegehas been refuscdlo othcrs and especially to inedical advisers9But ItlS OUt of rcgardto the interestsof juslicewhich cannot bc upholdcnand to the administrationof justicewhich cannot go on 1 r withoutthe aid of men skilled in 111 0 the practiceof thc courts and in those matters C I affecting rightsand obligationswhich form lhe C subject of all judicial Ifthe privilege I did not exist at all every one would be thrown Z uponhis own legalresourccs Deprivedof all r assistancc a lnan would not venture to consullanyskillI person or would onlydare 06 to tell his counsellor halfhls case 7 1876 Jcssel M ln Andcrson v Bank Lll 2 Z Ch D 644 6491 Thc objcctand mcanine of the Q rule is thisl That as by reason of the complcxity and difficultyof our law litigation can only bc properlyconducted by profcssionalmcn it lS ewe absolutelynecessary that a man 111 order to prosecute his rightsor to defend himself froin an improperclailn should have recourse to thc assistance of lawyersand it beingSo absolutely necessary it is equallynccessary to use a vulgarphrasethat he should be above to lnake a Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 324 d CWP NO0525 OF 2008 9 4 clean breast of il to the gentleinanwhom he consultswith a view to thc of his claim or thc his dcfencc againstthc claim of otllcrs that he should be ablc to placc unrcstrictcdand unboundcd confldence in thc agcnt and that thc conlmunicalionshc m C inakcs to hiin should bc keptsccrctunlcss with so 0 his consent 6f0r lt 1S his privilegcand not the C3 I privilege of the confldential agentlthat hc should 0 be enabledproperly to conduct his IitigationThat I is theinealling oftht rule 57 Z Thc scopc of the privilegewas agaiontraced by Sir William 0 Iloldsworth in his I300kA HistoryofEnglishLaw Vol IX as underl iiJDuring thc lattct halfofthe seventecthcentury 06 no very greatextensionwas givcnto the privilege 7 it was contraryto too many rcccivcd idcas as to thc Z conduct of criininal trials Until wcll on into thc Qe timc of thc Revolution thc privilege rcmained not lnuch morc than a barc rulc of Iaw which thcjudgeswould rccognizcon demand The eeeeee spiritof it was wantingin thein The old habit of questioningthc urgingthe accused died harc did not disappear indeed ll thecightcenth cenluryhad begun On the otherhand therc was a conlinuous current of authorityedown to the nineteenth ccnturyinfavour ofextendingthc privilcge so as Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 325 w1 CWP NO0525 OF 2008 10 41 to excusc a wilness from answeringquestionsnot onlyiftheyinightexposehiin to a Criininalcharge but also if thc answer would exposc him to disgrace This would secm to havc bcen lhc view ofHudsonanditwascertainlytheVICW of Trcby CJ in 1696 Starkie in 1824 arguedagainstthe 1 L CXlstencc of such a privilcgcbut thc Coinmon 0 Law Proccdure Comlnissioners in 1853 trcatcd it I as still subsisling unless thc lnisconduct imputed 0 has refercnce 10 lhe cause itself Theyadmitted I thcrefore that thcre 1S 110 such privilegeif the Z questiOllIS directJyrelevant to the issue If it is onlycollateral to thc issuc it would seeln that thc I court at thc prescntdayassumesa discretion as to 08 whether it will compclan answer Wc shall not see 7 that this extension of the privilcgeagainstsel Z incrimination is not whollyunconnectcd with the Ll ideas which originalIy gavc rise to the sccond of the Ieading to the rule of compulsior C theprlvilegcgivcnto Icgaladviserswith respectto communicationspassingbetween thelnselves and their clients lf the privilegeaccorded to COlninunicatioll between a client and his lcgaladvisers had rested merelypon the pointof honour it nl ighthave along with thc other suggested Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 326 0 CWP NO10525 OF 2008 Il 4 I3ut bcforc that time it had coinc to be basedalso on the groundthat it was a privilege to securc a clients freedom of action in his with his adviscrs The rcsult of this conflict of theories was that thc rulcs relatingto the Of thc privilegewere confused hus accordingto thc oIdcr thcory thc privilege 0 was the adviscrs accordin to the ncwer the C I clicnt 91 C5 It is furtherarguedthat theprivilege 1S 111the nature of 17rustkeeping I vicwtheIiduciaryrelalionship betweentl lawycrand the client and any Ill Z with the priviIegeis bound to destroythe faith and the trust r which a client reposes in his lawyerThe privilege under I Section 126 of the Evidence Act also llnds its statutoryprotcctionin 05 varlOUS olher statutes With thc cnactmcnt of thc Advocatcs Act 1961to I7 rceulatc thc membcrs of Iegalprofessionand to lay down their Z ethics and standard I3ar Council of India has been undcr Section 49 to inake rules The rclevant provisions of Scction49 61 c Jrcads as undcrl 49 Gcncral Power of the Bar council of lndia to C makes rulcs 11 llhe 13arCouncil of India may make rulcs for functions undcrthis Act and Ill particularsuch rulcs mayprcscribc XXX XXX XXX 6c9the standardof conduct and ctiqOctte to bc obscrvcd byadvocatcs 01 Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 327 e CWP NO10525 OF 2008 12 44 ln cxercise of the aforesaid powcr lhe 13ar Council of India has framedthc Bar Council of India Rulcs ChapterlI under Part Vll Scction II dealswith the standardof conduct and etiquettcRulc 17 of thcscRulcs deals with thedutytowardsclient as onc of the solclnn duties as undcr 17An Advocate shall not directlyor indirectlycommit 1 r a breachofthe obligations imposedby Scction 126ofthe 0 Indiail Evidence Act 35 C 1rom thc historical and schemeofabove Iaws it enlergcs C5 rightof a Iitigantbe a partyin Clvil lnatlers or an accusedin criininal case I to seek thelegaladvice lS to be construedaS one ofthe FundamentalRight Z under Part lIl of the Constitution of India lts traces are found under Articles 14 20 21 and 22 of thc Constitution of India Even Section 303 of the Code of CriIninal Procedure confers a rightupon a person c6 accuscd of an offencc bcfore a Criininal Court to bc dcfcnded bya pleader 7 of his choicc Scction 304 of the CrPC Iirthcr imposesa dutyupon thc Z Statcto providcthe services of a Iegal when accuscd is unablc m to securc such scrviccs byreasonsof his cconomic or other deficicncics or infinnities Ths provisionhas also been considered as a scquelto thc nghtof a pcrson to be dcfcnded againstcivil and criininal 4 action As a mattcr of act to seek Icgaladvicc is one of the Fundamental Right for access to j ustice Access to j ustice lS an i and indomitablecoinponentofadministration ofjusticeThe inutual belwecn a cl icnl and a counsel is to bc viewed Ill this context Thus the secrCCV lS the privilegeof the comlnunicalionsbctween thc clicnt and the Iawyerwhich is an obiigation both moral and Iegal Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 328 1 G1 CWP NO10525 OF 2008 13 b MrKSharma learnedcounsel for thc is however ofthe view thattheprivilegeifany undcr Section 126 ofthc Evidence Act stands obliteratcdand ccascd to cxist in vicw of thc latcr cnactmcnt ic Rightto lnfornlationAct 2005 refcrrcd to RrI Act1 Referencc is madcto Scctions 3 and 22 of the Rightto Jnformation Act which read as underl tr Subjcct to the provisionsof this Ac all citizensshall havc thc rightto information 0 C 22 The provisions ofthis Actshall havc cffcct anythinginconsistcnt therewith I containedin the Official Sccrcts Act 1923 and C5 anyother law for thc time beingin force Olin any I instrumentbalIingeffect by virtue of anylaw other than this Act 51 Z I3ased upon the aforesaid provisionMrharina argucdthat all Citizens of India have the rightlo infortnation and thus nothingremains I secret or keptto be secret after the enactmcnt of the Rightto Information c2j Act 2005 particularlywhen under Seclion 22 of the Act the provisions of lhis Act have ovcrridingcffect on all othcr laws for the timc bcingIll 7 Z force even on the Official Secret Ac 1923ltisthus argucdthatSection Qm 126 of thc Evidcnce Act is parf a gcncralstatutc dealingwith the inode and lllanncr of givingcvidcnce ln a court 0011 Iaw and its admissibilitv etc whcrcas thc Rightto lnformation Act 1S a spccialstatute cnacted by the r Parliament for a specifledpurpose of providing access to every kind of information to a citizen lt is furthcr contcnded that on account of non obstanteclause containcd under Scction 22 of the Rightto lnlornlation Act this Act has been givena dominanl position on all othcr laws includingany instruinent as also the Official SecretAct which hithetto was considcred to bc the inost sacrosanct and con Odential in thc intcrcst of sccurityof the State In sum and substance the contention is that in view of Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 329 il CWP NO10525 OF 2008 14 ight to Information Act nothingremains conOdential Or privilege thc comlnunicationsbelwecn thc lawycrand thc clicnt The aforesaidargulnentof Mrharma has bccn countenanccdby rcfcrence to Section8 of the Rightto Information Act Thc relcvant cxtractfrom Scction 80fthe Act rcadsas under xcmplionfrom disclosurcof infonnation 1 8 619 anything contained in this Act thcreshall be no obligation to giveany citizen 0 6a9information disclosurc of which would C affect thc sovcrcignty and integrityof India thc securitystralcgicscicntic or cconomic I 0 intcrcsts of the Statc rclation with forcignState or lcadto incitclncnt ofan offcnce bJ information which has been expressly forbidden to bc publishedby any court of law or Z tribunal or the disclosurc of which may constitute contcinpt ofcourt r c inforination thc disclosurc of which would causc a brcach of privilcgeof Parliamcnt or thc State I Lcglslature otj dl inforlnation includingcoinmcrcial confidence trade secrets or intellcctual propcrty the disclosureof whichwould harln the colnpctitive positionof a third 7 partyunless thc compctcntaulhorityis satisflcd that Z largcrpublicintercst warrants the disclosurc of such inforlnatiOtl cl information availablc to a person in his 1duciar5l unlcss thc compctentauthority 1S satisfied that the largerpublicinterestwarrants the disclosureofsuch information 17rolnthc rcadingof Scction 8 it appcarsthat this Section also starts with the nonobstante clauseand even tends10 ovcrie Section 22 of the C Rightto Inforlnalion act It is to note that Section22 ofthe Right lo InformationAcl givesovcrridingeffcct to theprovisionsofthis Act over thc Official Sccret Act 1923and any other law for thc tilne beingin force or even an enforceablc instrument by virtUC of any other law other than this Act This Section in fact tendsto givcto all swecpingeffcct lo lhe provisionsofthis Act over all othcr laws to thc cxtcnt theyarc in conslstcnt Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 330 lv CWP NO0525 OF 2008 15 ith thisAct Whcreas Section 80f the Rightto Inforination Act startswith nonobstante clause givingoverriding effect to celtain kind of inlormation and thc sainc from thc purvicwof all othcr provisions 0f lhis Act hc informationenuincratcdundcr this Section includc one of the inforlnation which may be available to a person on account of fiduciaryrelationshipas is clearlyprovided undcr Clausc 6e1of Section 8 m of thc Act l gocs without sayingthat thc rclationship of a lawyerand a 0 clicnt is in thc naturc of flduciary Thc duciaty t7 C I has bccn deflned in thc Blacks Law Dictionary 5 Edition to mcan C5 I trust or confidcncc hus by Virtue oClausccIofSection 8 ofthc Right to InRorrnationAct no person is underobligalion to discJosean inforlnation Z availablc to a person in his Oduciaryrelationshipunless the colnpeteilt a r authorily in largcrpublicinterestdecidesto disclosc such inforination I What is Public lnterest is another questionwhi ch needs lo be 08 examined Publ ic interest has 71ot been defincd undcr the Right to 7 Inforination Act IIowcvcr from thereadingofthc Evidcncc Act i1appcars Z that Section 126 itself permits disclosurc ofinformation under certain 11 SltuatioilS which scemsto bc within thc rcahn ofpublic intcrcs Proviso to Scction 126 of thc Evidence Act itsclf takcs away the protectionfrom disclosureofthe coinmunicationsbctwcen a praciionerand a client undcr c the conditions spccillcdthcrein Thc attachedto thc proviso furthcr providesthat the obllgations under this Section not to disclose the inlorInation and to protcct the confidcntiality of the communtcalions between the lawyerand the client even after the contract of employlnent cease to cxist continucs This mcans the veil of proteclionis perinancntin naturc Ullless perlnittedto be relnovcd by the ciient by exprcss consent Anita Rani 2014.01.25 11: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 331 1S 1 0 CWP NO10525 OF 2008 16 6 ullderSection 126ofthc Evidence Act It is arguedby MrAnupamGuptathat the privilege containcdundcr Scction 126 of the Evidcncc Act isIcn protectcdunder Clausec1of Scction 80f thc Rightto lnorInation Act and also undcr thc ofthe 13arCouncil of lndia Rules ic Rule 17 under ChapterII undcrPart Vl Scction Il It ls also arguedthat cvcn thoughSection 126 of m the Evidcnce Act is parl of a general statutc but the provisions is the 0 naturcof specialstatute WhereasRightto Information Act thoughspecial C I slatulc bul Scction 30f thc Act is a generalprovisioncontained thereln C I According to him if thereis a conflict or contradictionbetween thcspecial provision in a general statute and a generalprovisionin a specialstatute the Z m spccial provisionin a General Statute must have over the r gcncralprovisionin speciallaw and not vicc versa