Summary: The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu writ petition, ruled that investigating agencies cannot summon advocates merely for advising or representing clients in criminal matters, thereby upholding the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. The Court held that Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) offers absolute protection to confidential communications, with narrow exceptions only applying if the client consents, the communication furthers an illegal act, or the lawyer observes a new crime or fraud. The ruling emphasized that coercing lawyers to disclose client facts violates fundamental rights (Articles 19, 21, and 22) and the very concept of fair legal representation. While declining to create new guidelines, the SC instituted procedural safeguards: an investigating officer must obtain prior written approval from a superior officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) before summoning a lawyer, and the approval must record reasons in writing detailing which specific exception under Section 132 applies. This landmark judgment reinforces the inviolability of professional privilege and protects the independence of the Bar from intimidation.
SC Bars Police from Summoning Lawyers for Client Matters – Upholds Sanctity of Attorney–Client Privilege
Advocates Cannot Be Interrogated for Defending Clients – “Power to Summon Is Not Power to Breach Privilege”
Supreme Court of India
In a landmark judgment safeguarding the independence of the Bar & the sanctity of client–lawyer confidentiality, the Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot summon advocates merely for appearing or advising clients in criminal matters. The judgment arose from a suo motu reference following a Gujarat case where a lawyer was summoned by police under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for having filed a bail application on behalf of an accused
The Court held that Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), corresponding to Section 126 of the Evidence Act, confers absolute protection on privileged communications between a lawyer & client, except in cases where (i) the client consents, (ii) the communication furthers an illegal act, or (iii) the lawyer observes a fresh crime or fraud after engagement. These exceptions, the Court said, are narrowly construed & cannot be invoked casually by investigating officers
Justice Vinod Chandran emphatically observed that summoning advocates to disclose client facts violates Articles 19(1)(g), 21, & 22(1) of the Constitution and the very concept of fair legal representation. The Bench stressed that an accused’s right to counsel cannot be compromised by coercing his lawyer to divulge confidential communications. “A person cannot walk into his lawyer’s office with full privilege & walk out defaced of it,” the Court remarked
Rejecting the plea for new guidelines like those in Vishaka or Jacob Mathew, the Court held that there was no legislative vacuum, as Section 132 already provides an adequate framework. However, it introduced procedural safeguards:
- No investigating officer can summon an advocate except with prior written approval of a superior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
- Such approval must record reasons in writing, citing which exception under Section 132 applies.
- The advocate so summoned may challenge the notice before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS
The Court declared the summons in the Gujarat case “illegal & unconstitutional,” criticising the High Court for failing to protect the lawyer’s rights. It underscored that the power to summon is not the power to destroy professional privilege, echoing Justice Holmes’ dictum that “the power to tax is not the power to destroy.” Judicial oversight, it held, is inherent in the constitutional courts’ duty to preserve the integrity of the legal system
This landmark ruling reinforces that attorney–client privilege is inviolable & that lawyers cannot be harassed or interrogated merely for performing their professional duties. Investigators must now obtain SP-level approval with written justification before issuing any summons to a lawyer. The judgment preserves the rule of law, protects advocacy from intimidation, & upholds the right to fair legal representation as a constitutional guarantee.
Author Bio
