Today, On 31st October, The Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies must not summon advocates representing the accused, stressing that “such summons could infringe fundamental rights of the accused” and violate statutory provisions protecting lawyer-client confidentiality under Section 132 and the new BNSS framework.
New Delhi: In a significant judgment protecting lawyer-client privilege and procedural fairness, the Supreme Court on Friday delivered its verdict.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria observed that the evidentiary process must align with procedural safeguards and reaffirmed that advocates cannot be compelled to disclose privileged information shared by their clients.
Delivering the order, the bench stated,
“We have attempted to align the evidentiary process with procedural safeguards. The advocate not to disclose any privileged information. Investigating officers must not summon lawyers representing the accused, except under specified exceptions which must be clearly stated. Advocates bound by confidentiality fall under Section 132.”
The Court further addressed the issue of handling electronic evidence under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), noting that digital devices should be produced before the jurisdictional court and not directly accessed by investigating agencies.
It said,
“Regarding digital evidence, under the BNSS, electronic devices should be produced only before the jurisdictional court. If objections are overruled, such devices may be accessed only in the presence of the concerned lawyer and parties.”
The Supreme Court also took a firm stance on the misuse of summons against advocates representing accused persons. Quashing the summons issued in a pending special leave petition, the bench ruled that such actions could violate fundamental rights and statutory protections.
The order declared,
“We have quashed the summons issued in the SLP, noting that such summons could infringe upon the fundamental rights of the accused who placed their trust in their lawyer, and would also amount to a violation of statutory provisions.”
Previously, On July 29, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a lawyer should be summoned by investigative agencies for providing legal opinions to clients under investigation. The court stated that if a lawyer is merely acting in that capacity, they should not be summoned.
However, if the lawyer is found to be assisting the client in committing a crime, then they could be called upon.
Also Read: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
The apex court previously remarked that the “Enforcement Directorate (ED) was crossing all limits” and expressed significant concern over the agency summoning lawyers for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations.
The court also called for the establishment of guidelines regarding this matter.
This suo motu case arose after the ED summoned prominent lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.
Additionally, On June 20, the ED announced that it had instructed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate involved in money laundering investigations concerning their clients. Exceptions to this rule could only be made with the approval of the agency’s director.
The ED, which is responsible for tackling money laundering offenses, issued a circular to guide its field formations, indicating that “no summons should be issued to any advocate” in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
The summons issued to these advocates was criticized by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), who deemed the action a “disturbing trend” that undermines the very foundations of the legal profession.
The bar associations urged the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu cognizance of the issue.
Case Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues |SMW (Cal) 2/2025