NEW DELHI, October 31, 2025 – In a significant ruling safeguarding the independence of the legal profession, the Supreme Court of India (2025 INSC 1275) has definitively prohibited investigating agencies from issuing summons to lawyers solely to extract confidential details about their client’s case.
The judgment underscores that compelling an Advocate to disclose information shared confidentially during professional service violates the client’s statutory privilege under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Origin of the Challenge
The matter arose from a reference concerning a Special Leave Petition after an Advocate, who had successfully filed a bail application, was summoned by an Assistant Commissioner of Police (Investigating Officer, I.O.) under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The summons abruptly ordered the Advocate to appear to “know true details of the facts and circumstances” of the ongoing criminal case. The High Court had declined to intervene, which the Supreme Court found to be flawed and erroneous. The central question posed was whether an I.O. could question a lawyer solely for advising a party.
Decision Protects Fundamental Rights
The Supreme Court answered this question with an emphatic “NO”. The Court stressed that the privilege of non-disclosure is conferred upon the client and serves as a vital component of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and the right to effective legal representation (Article 21).
Any attempt by an I.O. to coerce an Advocate into revealing privileged communication constitutes an overreach and is a violation of the statutory mandate. The Court set aside the original illegal summons.
New Rules for Summoning Advocates
While rejecting the request to formulate comprehensive new guidelines—finding that the existing BNSS (specifically Section 528) and BSA provisions provide adequate framework—the Court issued specific, binding directions:
- Exceptions Only: A summons can only be issued if the information sought falls under the statutory exceptions in Section 132 BSA (e.g., communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or observation of a crime committed after the engagement commenced).
- Explicit Satisfaction: The summons must explicitly detail the facts that rely on the exception.
- Superior Approval: This action requires the written approval and recorded satisfaction of a superior officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP).
- Judicial Review: Any summons issued under these rules remains open to challenge through judicial review under Section 528 BNSS.
Distinction for In-house Counsel and Digital Devices
The judgment drew a key distinction regarding legal professionals employed by corporations. The Court held that In-house counsel are not entitled to the protection afforded by Section 132 of the BSA because their status as full-time, salaried employees compromises the professional independence necessary for the privilege to apply.
Regarding the production of documents or digital devices (like phones or computers), the Court clarified that the privilege covers the communication content, but not the document or device itself. If an I.O. directs a lawyer to produce a digital device under Section 94 of the BNSS, it must be produced directly before the Jurisdictional Court. The Court must then hear objections and ensure that, if the device is opened, care is taken to protect confidential information relating to the lawyer’s other clients.
