{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co","Pallavi Shroff"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien","index":1,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","India"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes. The protection under Indian law is provided in two ways. A lawyer is not permitted to disclose ACP communication, and the client cannot be compelled to dislose ACP communication.\nACP applies to communications made between a lawyer and his/her client in the course of the lawyer's engagement by the client. ACP is statutorily recognized in India as a principle of law of evidence. Under \nIndian Evidence Law, no lawyer is permitted, except with the express consent of the client, to (i) disclose any communications made to the lawyer in the course of and for the purpose of employment as a lawyer; or (ii) state the contents or condition of any document with which the lawyer has become acquainted in the course of and for the purpose of professional employment; or (iii) disclose any advice given by the lawyer to the client in the course of and for the purpose of such employment.\nThe \nIndian Advocates Act 1961 (the \"\nAdvocates Act\"), and the rules framed thereunder which govern and regulate legal practitioners in India, and the \nBar Council of India (\"BCI\") Rules specifically prohibit advocates from breaching their obligations under the rules of privilege set out above.\nACP will continue even after the lawyer-client relationship has ceased.\nACP does not apply if (a) the relevant communication was made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, or (b) the lawyer detects in the course of his/her employment that a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his/her employment.\nThe \nIndian Evidence Act also protects the clients’ confidential communications with legal advisers. The client cannot be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between the client and the legal professional adviser. However, if the client offers himself/herself as a witness, he/she may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to explain any evidence which he/she has given, but no others.\n"]
["If the ACP is not recognized in your jurisdiction, are there rules of professional confidentiality or other rules that would enable a lawyer or a client to withhold attorney-client communications or work product prepared by counsel from disclosure in a civil proceeding?\n\nNote: This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.","Not applicable. \n"]
["Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?","In civil proceedings, privileged documents are exempt from production and are inadmissible as evidence. The party asserting privilege in response to an application for inspection or to produce the relevant document for the court's inspection can call upon the court to decide whether the claim for privilege is valid. In civil proceedings, a request for interrogatories (i.e. disclosure of a certain document) may be denied on the grounds of privilege, but subject to the court’s decision in this regard.\nApplying the general ACP rules, the same would apply to defense attorneys and clients with regard to engagement and the legal advice given in the course of the engagement.\nIn criminal matters, there is a distinction between court proceedings and investigation. In an investigation when a person is summoned to produce documents, he/she may be bound to produce all documents (including which may be privileged). The investigating authority may require the production of documents that may have come into existence by way of legal advice received in the past. There is no clear rule in this regard, but the Code of Criminal Procedure which applies to investigations does not provide an exception for any ACP-related documentation. However, when it comes to admissibility in a court, it may be argued that ACP communication is inadmissible as evidence against the accused based on the \nIndian Evidence Act. The validity of any such objection on grounds of privilege will be decided by the court. In criminal proceedings, the court has a wide discretion to order the production of any document it considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings.\nIn both civil and criminal proceedings, if the court decides that a privileged document should be disclosed, privilege is lost and is no longer available.\n"]
["In the corporate context, what test is applied to determine who within a corporation is considered the client for the purposes of the ACP?  (e.g., in the U.S.: the Upjohn approach, control group test, etc.)","There are no definite tests or rules to determine who within a corporation is considered a client for the purposes of ACP. Under \nIndian Corporate Law, a company is managed ultimately by the Board of Directors and key management personnel.\nThere is further ambiguity with regard to the application of ACP even to general counsel or the internal legal department of a corporation.\nThere is no clarity that professionally qualified lawyers employed by a corporation in its internal legal department would have the benefit of ACP in its dealings with the corporation. No particular test has been formulated, whether through statutory law or case law, to determine the applicability of ACP for internal legal departments of corporations. In the normal course, the corporation, being a separate legal entity, would be treated as the client. However, difficulty may arise as to determine who within the corporation is considered as a client for the purposes of ACP.\nIt is advisable that the retainer agreement with the attorney must provide for clear lines of communication and adequate safeguards must be in place to maintain confidentiality and privilege with the designated employees of the corporation who shall be sharing privileged communication.\n"]
["Is in-house counsel expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel in order to establish that privilege applies to in-house counsel’s communications?","The rules applicable to Indian advocates, specifically provides that an advocate cannot be employed by a corporation and also retain the status of an advocate under the \nIndian Advocates Act, inasmuch as in-house counsels are not allowed to be active members of the bar. The \nBar Council of India Rules provides that lawyers employed with a corporation, are under an obligation to relinquish their registration as an advocate (i.e. relinquish their position as an active member of the bar). This would mean that in-house counsels may not have the protection of ACP. Accordingly, it is not the case in India that in-house counsel is expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel because the in-house counsel is not treated in law as an active practicing member of the bar. But it is always advisable to have a clear separation of tasks done by in-house counsels in their capacity of legal professional adviser as distinct from other tasks which may not be done in the capacity of a legal professional adviser. Hence, it is recommended that in-house counsels clearly separate documents that are made in anticipation of litigation, and mark it as made in anticipation of litigation by the internal legal department of the corporation of which the in-house counsel is a part. As stated above, it is unclear whether communication between in-house counsels and their employer could be protected by ACP, and the same would depend on a number of factors on a case-to-case basis. It is reiterated that the benefit of absolute ACP would not be available to in-house counsels merely due to the reason that they are legal advisers to the corporation and employed by the corporation. \nThe ACP would come into play when the in-house counsel communicates with outside counsel. Thus it may be necessary to bring in-house counsel material within the ambit of ACP through the engagement of outside counsel on particular matters. Till such a point of involvement of outside counsel and the material is clearly segregated which forms confidential communication with the outside counsel, it may be very difficult to claim ACP for such material.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","Not applicable to India. \n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","Not applicable to India.\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","No. the common interest doctrine is not recognized in India. \n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","Not applicable. \n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","Not applicable. \n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","Funding of litigation by advocates in India is impermissible. However, there appears to be no restriction on third parties (non-lawyers) funding the litigation and getting repaid after the outcome of the litigation. However the law in India with regard to third-party funding is at a nascent stage, and the scope and extent have not been fully tested by the courts.\n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","There have been no instances where a Court or Tribunal has taken a categorical view on third-party funding vis-à-vis attorney-client privilege.\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","ACP does not apply if (a) the relevant communication was made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, or (b) the lawyer detects in the course of his/her employment that a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his/her employment.\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","Section 126 of the \nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 carves out the crime/ fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.\n"]
["Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege (doctrine that protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial)"]
["Is there a statute or rule that protects information obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure in legal proceedings?  (In the U.S.:  What state rule is your jurisdiction’s analog to FRCP 26(b)(3)?)","The \nIndian Evidence Act at Section 129, protects confidential communications which have taken place between a person and his legal professional advisor. As explained above lawyers employed by corporations may not have the protection of ACP with regard to their advice to the corporation. But communications with a legal professional advisor by the client are protected. Thus, if the information is obtained by lawyers in the course of his engagement or documents are exchanged which are prepared in anticipation of litigation may be brought within the scope of confidential communication under Section 126 and Section 129 of the Indian \nEvidence Act. Thus, the work product doctrine would apply, as far as the advocate's legal advise is concerned, and documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by the client would be protectable under ACP if it is communicated to the advocate. An interplay of Section 126 and 129 of the\n Indian Evidence Act would thus apply to protect such communication, provided outside counsels are involved.\n"]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?"," Indian rules of ACP would broadly cover the following: \n\n \n\t Work Product prepared by an advocate for the client \n\t Documents prepared by an advocate in anticipation of a litigation \n\t Documents prepared jointly by the advocate and the client in anticipation of litigation, and \n\t Documents prepared by the client in anticipation of litigation if the same are communicated to the advocate and intended to be privileged. \n \n\n However, there are no statutory rules in this regard and as a general practice, all work product and Litigation-related documents ought to be marked as privileged and confidential to ensure protection under ACP.   \n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","No. \n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","No. However, most mediations take place in a confidential setting and it is without prejudice to either party's right to litigation. To such an extent, material and discussions in mediations may not be acted upon by courts.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","No. See the answer above.\n"]