Case Background

The Court framed two central questions:

1. Can an investigating or prosecuting agency directly summon a lawyer for questioning merely because they advise or represent a party?

2. If an advocate’s role allegedly goes beyond legal representation, should such summoning be subject to judicial oversight?

The matter attracted interventions from the Bar Council of India, Supreme Court Bar Association, and other professional bodies. They contended that such summons violate advocates’ constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, breach client-attorney privilege under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (equivalent to Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1872), and erode the foundations of legal representation.

State’s Position

The Attorney General and Solicitor General did not contest the privilege principle but argued that no new guidelines were necessary, as existing statutory protections were sufficient. They emphasized that while advocates cannot be summoned for performing legitimate legal duties, they are not immune if they participate in criminal activity or communications made for illegal purposes.

Court’s Analysis

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the Bench, affirmed the vital role of lawyers as “guardians of freedom” and emphasized that summoning them for details of their client’s case violates both statutory privilege and constitutional safeguards. The Court highlighted:

• The privilege under Section 132 of the BSA protects all confidential communications between lawyer and client unless used for an illegal purpose.

• Summoning an advocate to reveal client information constitutes a breach of trust and infringes upon the client’s right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to effective legal representation under Articles 21 and 22(1).

• Investigating agencies must rely on independent evidence, not compel lawyers to act as informants against their clients.

The Court compared this issue with precedents like Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, observing that unlike those cases, no legal vacuum existed here that warranted new judicial guidelines—the law already provided sufficient safeguards.

Key Findings and Directions

1. Absolute prohibition on summoning lawyers: Investigating agencies cannot directly summon a lawyer who represents or advises a client in a case to elicit facts or details, unless the situation clearly falls under the statutory exceptions in Section 132 of the BSA.

2. Procedural safeguard: Any summons to an advocate must be approved in writing by a superior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, stating specific reasons invoking the exception.

3. Judicial oversight: Lawyers can challenge such summons under Section 528 of the BNSS, ensuring adequate judicial control.

4. No separate guidelines or committees: The Court declined to create special procedures for lawyers, as it could undermine equality before law and hinder investigations.

5. In-house counsel distinction: The judgment clarified that full-time in-house legal employees are not “advocates” under the Advocates Act and thus do not enjoy the same privilege of professional independence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that summoning advocates merely for representing or advising clients is illegal and unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship, the independence of the legal profession, and the client’s right to confidential and fearless representation. At the same time, it preserves the authority of investigative agencies to act when credible evidence indicates a lawyer’s complicity in a crime.