Relationship b/w lawyer & client confidential, part of 'privileged communication': Delhi Court

New Delhi: Observing that the relationship between the advocate and his client is confidential and form part of the "privileged communication" within the scope of the ambit of section 126 of Indian Evidence Act, a Delhi court on Friday posed a set of questions to the Delhi Police as to how it plans to retrieve the "target data" from Advocate Mehmood Pracha's computer without creating any "evidential vulnerabilities".

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dr Pankaj Sharma, in his order, stated that the protection available under section 126 of Indian Evidence Act makes it imperative that the court protect the data/files relating to communication of

clients with Pracha in the hard disk from interference of

police when they collect the said data.

Noting that the hard disk consists of other information besides the "target data" for which search warrants were obtained by police, the court observed that, "...the issue relating to retrieval of 'target data' without interference with the other data stored in the hard disk has to be meticulously looked upon and at the same time, obtaining 'target data' without creating any evidential vulnerabilities for future purpose has to be considered because it is important for the IO to maintain the authenticity and integrity of the 'target data'".

The court further went on to pose two questions to police as to how it plans to retrieve the "target data" without affecting the files pertaining to Pracha's clients.

The court asked as to how does the prosecution propose to "receive 'target data' of the pen drive without creating any evidential vulnerability" and how does it propose to "retrieve 'target data' without any alteration to the metadata associated with the 'target data' to prevent further evidential vulnerabilities without any disruption/interference/disclosure of the other files/data stored in the hard disk relating to other clients of the applicant…".

Noting this, the court sought a reply from the IO in this regard on or before March 19, when the matter will be heard again.

In an earlier order passed on March 10, the court had stayed the operation of a search warrant obtained by

the Delhi Police Special Cell to raid Pracha's Nizamuddin office after the agency carried out a second search operation at his office on March 9. In an earlier raid conducted on December 24, police had claimed that they were searching for "incriminating documents" and "metadata" of the outbox of the official email ID of Pracha's legal firm.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who has been representing several accused persons in connection with last year's Delhi riots, in his petition before the court had termed the second raid conducted at his office as "completely illegal and unjustified since the specific documents etc., are already in their (police) possession from the previous exercise (alleged search) itself".

During the hearing, Pracha had alleged: "It is my

fundamental and constitutional right to protect the interest of my clients...they want to act under their political masters...if you want to hang me then do it, but I cannot sacrifice my attorney privilege communication...".