In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that investigating agencies cannot directly summon advocates for routine questioning regarding matters involving their clients. The ruling — issued in a suo motu writ petition — addresses growing concerns over law enforcement practices that compelled advocates to reveal privileged communications, undermining professional ethics and the right to fair legal representation.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
1. Absolute Privilege with Limited Exceptions
Under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), all professional communications between advocates and clients are protected by confidentiality. Exceptions apply only when such communications are made to further an illegal act or when an advocate discovers a crime or fraud committed during their engagement.
2. Strict Oversight for Summons
The Court emphasized that any summon issued to an advocate must be justified by written approval from a senior police officer, explicitly stating reasons and legal grounds. These actions are subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prevent misuse.
3. No Blanket Guidelines Needed
Rejecting calls for new procedural frameworks, the Court held that existing statutory provisions are sufficient to protect advocate rights. Each case must be evaluated independently, with courts serving as the ultimate safeguard against overreach.
4. Production of Documents and Devices
The privilege does not extend to physical documents or digital devices in an advocate’s possession. However, courts must ensure that unrelated or confidential client data remain protected during discovery or evidence collection.
5. In-House Counsel Excluded
The Court clarified that full-time corporate in-house counsel are not considered practicing advocates under the BSA and therefore do not enjoy full advocate-client privilege. They receive limited protection under Section 134, distinct from practicing advocates.
Implications for Legal Professionals and Law Enforcement
- No Routine Summons to Advocates: Police and investigating agencies are barred from routinely calling advocates for questioning about their clients.
- Right to Confidential Legal Advice: Advocate-client privilege is treated as a fundamental component of justice, ensuring fair representation and protection against self-incrimination.
- Courts as Final Arbiters: Any dispute regarding claims of privilege must be decided by the judiciary, after hearing both the advocate and the client.
- No Blanket Immunity: Advocates are not immune from investigation if credible evidence of wrongdoing exists — but due process must be followed.
- Protection Against Abuse: Any overbroad or arbitrary summons can be immediately challenged before constitutional courts.
This ruling is a major reaffirmation of the sanctity of advocate-client confidentiality and a clear directive to law enforcement agencies to respect the independence of the legal profession. It reinforces that confidential legal advice is a cornerstone of justice, not subject to casual intrusion by investigative authorities.
