If your privilege is endangering someone else’s life then you can pierce the privilege-

x v. y case.

Section 121- judges and magistrate- no judge or magistrate shall be called upon to
give statements regarding his conduct in court or any knowledge which he come to
know in court except when he is called upon by superior court to which he is
subordinate. He may be examined regarding other matters that happened in his
presence when he was acting.

Section 122- communications during marriage- no person who is married or has been
married shall be called upon to give statements regarding the communication that took
place between the married partners unless the other person consents or his
representative in interest consents unless they are the party against each other in suit
or one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.

Section 123- evidence as to affairs of state- no person is authorised to give evidence of

the unpublished official records regarding the state affairs unless the head of the
concerned department gives permission.

Section 124- official communications- no public officer shall be compelled to disclose

communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that public
interest would suffer with such disclosure.

Section 125- information as to commission of offences- no police officer or magistrate

shall be compelled to say information regarding any commission of offence and no
revenue officer shall be compelled to say information regarding offence against public
revenue.

Section 126- no barrister, pleader, attorney, vakil shall at any time be permitted to
disclose any communications that took place between the client and them or any
disclosure regarding that document which he has become acquainted to in the course
of his employment unless the client gives consent. Provided that, this section shall not
apply when:

1. Any such communication made in furtherance of illegal purpose

 2. Any fact observed by the barrister, pleader, attorney, vakil in the course of his
employment as such the fraud or crime has been committed after the
commencement of his employment

It is immaterial whether or not not the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney,
vakil was directed towards such fact or not.

Section 127- section 126 applies to interpreters, clerks of such attorney, vakil or
servants of barristers and pleaders, vakil.

Section 128- privilege not waived by volunteering evidence-if any party to a suit gives
evidence therein at his own stance or otherwise, he shall not be have deemed to have
consented thereby to such disclosure in section 126, and any party to such such suit
calls any barrister, vakil, pleader, attorney as witness, he shall be have consented to
such disclosure only if he questions such barrister, attorney or vakil on matters which,
but for such matters, he would not be at liberty to disclose.

Section 129- confidential communications with legal advisors- no one shall be forced
to disclose any information which has taken place between him and his legal advisor
in court unless he has offered himself as witness in that case he will be compelled to
disclose such information as the court may deems to fit to prove the evidence he may
have given but no others.

Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 704

Facts:

● A was convicted for murder of his father and step-mother

● They were found dead with multiple injuries

● The chaukidar filed an FIR and also PW1- he stated there was bitter feelings
between ram bharosey and his father which made him suspect for his murder.
 ● There was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the murder. Ram
bharosey was arrested leaving for another village and he was wearing the same
blood stained dhoti

Rule:

● The text mentions Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which deals with
privileged communications made to a husband or wife and cannot be used as
evidence in court.

Issues:

● Whether inadmissible evidence, such as statements made by the appellant to his

wife, was wrongly admitted in court.
● Whether the presence of bloodstains on the appellant's dhoti was sufficient to
prove his participation in the crime.
● Whether the production of blood-stained ornaments by the appellant indicated
his guilt of murder.
● Whether circumstantial evidence in the case was sufficient to convict the
appellant.

Held:

● The court found that the statements made by the appellant to his wife were
inadmissible under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.

● The court disagreed with the appellant's argument that the bloodstains on his
dhoti were not sufficient to prove his participation in the murder. The court
considered other evidence, such as the appellant's actions on the morning of the
crime, including bathing and putting on the same dhoti, which was
blood-stained.
 ● The court also found that the production of blood-stained ornaments, along
with a blood-stained gandasa (a type of weapon), was significant evidence
against the appellant.

● The court concluded that the cumulative evidence, including the strained
relationship between the appellant and his father, was sufficient to sustain the
finding of the lower courts that the appellant had committed murder.

Witness Testimony:

● The text mentions the testimony of P. W. 2, who was the appellant's wife. She
provided information about the appellant's actions on the morning of the crime
and the statements he made to her. However, some of her statements were
deemed inadmissible as privileged communications.

● there is the evidence of P. W. 2 that the accused was seen in the early hours of the
27th May 1952 while it was still dark, coming down the roof of his house, that he
went to the bhusha kothri and came out again and had a bath and put on the dhoti
again. This is not inadmissible under Section 122, as it has reference to acts and
conduct of the appellant and not to any communication made by him to his wife.
Secondly, there is the fact that among the articles delivered by him to P. W. 18 at
the time of the investigation on the morning of the 27th was a blood-stained
gandasa.
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493 (5 Judge Bench)

Facts:

● The respondent, a District and Sessions Judge in the erstwhile State of Pepsu,
was removed from service on April 7, 1953, by an order from the President of
India.
● A representation made by the respondent on May 18, 1955, was considered by
the Council of Ministers of the State in September 28, 1955, after the
President's rule had ended.
● The Council of Ministers sought advice from the Public Service Commission
before making any decisions.
● The Council of Ministers revisited the matter on March 8, 1956, and August
11, 1956.
● On August 11, 1956, the Council decided that the respondent could be
re-employed on a suitable post.
● The respondent filed a lawsuit against the State of Punjab on May 5, 1958,
seeking a declaration that his removal in 1953 was illegal.
● The respondent requested certain documents, including the proceedings of the
Council of Ministers and the report of the Public Service Commission, for his
case.

Issues:

● Whether the documents requested by the respondent, which included the

minutes of Council of Ministers' meetings, were subject to privilege under
Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
● Whether the Court had the authority to compel the State to produce these
documents when the State claimed privilege.

Rule:
 ● Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, grants privilege to certain
documents related to "affairs of State." These documents are protected from
disclosure in court proceedings.

Held:

● The documents containing the minutes of the Council of Ministers' meetings,

which indicated the advice given to the Rajpramukh, were expressly saved by
Article 163(3) of the Indian Constitution and fell within the category of
documents related to "affairs of State" under Section 123 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Therefore, they were protected from disclosure.

● The report of the Public Service Commission, being advice tendered by it, was
also protected under Section 123.

● While Section 123 is broad, it does not cover every document related to the
entire business of the State but is limited to documents whose disclosure may
cause injury to public interest.

● The Court has the authority to determine the validity of objections to the
production of privileged documents, and it can request additional evidence or
affidavits to decide whether the documents fall under the privilege.

● The privilege should be claimed by the head of the department or the Minister
in charge, and the claim should be supported by an affidavit that demonstrates
that the disclosure of the document would lead to public injury.
 Excerpts from S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149

Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with non-disclosure of
documents related to affairs of State, must be interpreted dynamically to align with
changing societal values and democratic principles. The primary concern of Section
123 is preventing public injury, and the court's role is to balance public interest in fair
administration of justice against the interest in non-disclosure. Three views on
documents pertaining to affairs of State are discussed, and Section 162 allows for
preliminary inquiries into objections to document production. The court's function is
to assess the document's character and potential public interest harm, leaving the final
decision on disclosure to the head of the department.

Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section deals with the protection of
unpublished official records relating to affairs of the state. It states that no one shall be
permitted to give evidence derived from such records unless permission is granted by
the head of the concerned department.

Public Interest Basis: The fundamental principle behind Section 123 is to safeguard
public interest. It seeks to prevent the production of documents if their disclosure
could cause harm to public interest.

Balancing Public Interests: When a claim for immunity against disclosure is made
under Section 123, the court's role is to balance two aspects of public interest:
a. Government's Claim: The government asserts that the document's disclosure
would result in injury to public interest, and it is primarily concerned with this aspect.
b. Fair Administration of Justice: The court considers the public interest in ensuring
a fair administration of justice, which includes the right to access evidence in legal
proceedings.

Court's Discretion: The court has the discretion to inspect documents for the purpose
of determining whether their disclosure would be injurious to public interest and
whether they fall under the category of affairs of state.
Not Bound by Government's Affidavit: While the court takes into account the
affidavit submitted by the government official objecting to disclosure, it is not bound
by it. The court must independently assess the competing public interests involved.

Residual Power to Inspect: The court has a residual power to inspect documents if
there is doubt regarding whether they relate to affairs of state. This power is exercised
sparingly, only when necessary, and when the court is uncertain after considering the
affidavit, the issues in the case, and the relevance of the document.

Need for Balance: The court's ultimate task is to strike a balance between the
potential harm to public interest caused by disclosure and the potential injustice
caused by non-disclosure. It weighs these two aspects and decides which should
prevail in the specific case.

Courts vs. Government: The court's role in this matter is distinct from that of the
government. While the government is primarily concerned with protecting public
interest from its perspective, the court takes a broader view, considering the interests
of justice in the pending litigation.

Objective of Fair Justice: Ultimately, the court aims to ensure that justice is done
and seen to be done, even in cases involving the government, and that litigants have
access to the necessary means for presenting their case effectively.

Flexible Interpretation: The court emphasises that the interpretation of Section 123
must adapt to changing concepts and values in society, reflecting the principles of
democracy and open government, where disclosure of information is the rule, and
secrecy is the exception justified only by strict requirements of public interest.