(1.) THE petitioner is a doctor posted in Central Jail, Patiala. He has questioned the legality and validity of suspension order dated 5.5.2008 (Annexure P -23) placing him under suspension allegedly pursuant to a communication of respondent No 3 a law Officer working as Senior Deputy Advocate General Punjab in the office of Advocate General, Punjab. He has also assailed the opinion of the Board of Doctors of the PGIMER, Chandigarh dated 15.3.2008 in respect of one Narinder Kumar son of Dharam Kumar, as accused lodged in the Central Jail as an under trail for commission of offences under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC. While alleging motives to respondent No. 3. a Law Officer has placed on record copies of certain communications addressed by respondent No 3 to functionaries of the State in this professional capacity as he was engaged to represent the State in a case Crl. Mis. No. 3746 of 2008 filed by Jai Kishan for cancellation of bail of the petitioner -Doctor, Copies of these communications from respondent No. 3 to S.K. Asthana. SSP, Patiala, Mohammad fzhar Alan IPS. Additional Director General of Police. Punjab, Chandigarh are Annexures P -19/1. P -19/2 & P -19/3 respectively. During the course of the hearing of this writ petition, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while noticing the aforesaid communications between the counsel and the functionaries of the State (Client) was of the opinion that such communications are privileged under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 and accordingly vide order dated 8.12.2008 invited a debate on the question of privilege Vide aforesaid order dated 8.12.2008 the Hon'ble Division Bench issued notice to the Advocate Generals for the States of Punjab and Haryana Assistant Solicitor General, Union Of India, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh. Chairman Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and President High Court Bar Association. Order dated 8.12.2008 is reproduced as under: -
(2.) MR . S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged in paragraphs 20 and (sic) of the writ petition that the letters do not represent the true court proceedings and has been procured by Jai Krishan, complainant in the case who belongs to the Ruling Party, Shiromani Akali Dal whereas the petitioner's brother -in -law has been closed to the Congress Government during Congress Rule in Punjab. However, without going to the merit of the controversy, for the purpose of the consideration of the issue raised by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 8.12.2008, I examine the question of the - - - - Privilege - - of the communication between the counsel and the client.
(3.) MR . Anupam Gupta learned counsel for U.T. Chandigarh addressed the Court on the question of - -privilege - - at length tracing the history of privilege under English Law and the object, purport and it - -s necessity and observance part of the access to justice. It is contended that the privilege contemplated under Section 126 of the Evidence Act is for the larger public interest to project the client as also the profession. While tracing the history of privilege, a reference is made to A Treatise on the Anglo -American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law John Henry Wigmore, Professor of the Law of Evidence in the Law School of Northwestern University. Third Edition Vol. 8 as under. -