Section 127: Privilege Extends to Interpreters and Clerks

Overview

Section 127 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, ensures that conversations between a lawyer and their client remain private, even when an interpreter, clerk, or other assistant helps with those communications. This means these assistants cannot be forced to reveal what they heard or saw during their work for the lawyer. It’s about protecting the trust between a lawyer and client.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section deals with preventing the *admission* of evidence – specifically, preventing oral testimony or documents revealing confidential client communications. It doesn’t directly concern documentary or electronic evidence *unless* that evidence contains the confidential communication.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: Evidence is *inadmissible* if it reveals a confidential communication made between a client and their lawyer *through* an interpreter, clerk, or assistant. The communication must have occurred in the course of legal representation.
• Burden of Proof Implications: The party seeking to *admit* evidence that might breach this privilege has the burden of proving it doesn’t fall under the protection of Section 127. They must show the communication wasn’t confidential, or wasn’t made in the course of legal representation.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges will typically apply this section when one party tries to call an interpreter or clerk as a witness to reveal what they heard during a meeting between the lawyer and client. The lawyer representing the client will object, citing Section 127. The judge will then decide if the communication was truly confidential and related to legal advice. If so, the judge will rule the evidence inadmissible.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – Simple Situation: A client tells their lawyer, through an interpreter, about a crucial detail of the case. The opposing lawyer tries to call the interpreter to testify about what the client said. The lawyer for the client objects under Section 127, and the judge will likely prevent the interpreter from testifying about that specific conversation.
• Example 2 – More Complex Situation: A clerk accidentally overhears a lawyer discussing a settlement offer with their client while delivering documents. The opposing lawyer tries to question the clerk about the settlement amount. The court will consider if the clerk’s overhearing was truly accidental and if the discussion was intended to be confidential. If so, Section 127 would likely protect the information.

Important Provisos / Explanations

This section doesn’t have any specific provisos or explanations attached to it. The core principle is straightforward: protect confidentiality through intermediaries involved in legal representation.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had similar provisions relating to legal professional privilege (Section 126). The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, clarifies and expands this privilege to explicitly include interpreters, clerks, and other assistants, making the protection more comprehensive and addressing modern legal practice.

Key Takeaways

• Section 127 protects client confidentiality.
• It extends privilege to interpreters, clerks, and assistants.
• Evidence revealing confidential communications through these intermediaries is inadmissible.
• The party seeking to admit such evidence bears the burden of proving it’s not privileged.