The Supreme Court, quoting Shakespeare’s famous line “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” criticised investigating agencies for summoning advocates in criminal cases, warning that such actions could infringe upon their fundamental rights and undermine the independence of the legal profession.
When I first read the line “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II when I was 15 years old, I thought it was meant to mock lawyers, but reading it again years later; 10 to be exact, this time in a Supreme Court judgment, I realised it was not an insult. It was a warning.
In the play, those words are spoken by a rebel who wants to overthrow order. Shakespeare’s message was simple: if you want to destroy justice, start by destroying the lawyers.
That line now opens one of the most powerful Supreme Court judgments of recent years, In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases, delivered on October 31, 2025.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran began the judgment with Shakespeare, using literature to remind us that liberty cannot survive if lawyers are not free to do their work.
The Case That Sparked It All
The case began with a troubling event in Gujarat. A police officer, acting under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), summoned a lawyer who had represented an accused in a financial dispute. The officer demanded that the lawyer appear “to know the true facts and circumstances of the case.”
In other words, the lawyer was being questioned simply because he had appeared for a client.
When the lawyer approached the Gujarat High Court, his plea was rejected. The High Court held that the summons was valid, as the officer was only calling him as a witness. But when the matter reached the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench recognised that this went beyond one individual’s complaint.
It raised a much larger question: can investigating agencies summon advocates just because they represent or advise someone under investigation?
The Court treated it as a suo motu matter, recognising that the independence of the legal profession was at stake.
The Bar Fights Back
What followed was a rare moment of unity in the legal community. The Supreme Court Bar Association, the Advocates-on-Record Association, the Bar Council of India, and many senior advocates intervened.
Their argument was clear: summoning lawyers for representing clients violates both professional ethics and constitutional rights.
They pointed to Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which protects confidential communications between a lawyer and a client. This privilege ensures that people can speak openly to their lawyers without fear that their words will be used against them. Breaching it, they said, would not only break professional trust but also threaten the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
As someone who follows and writes about the law, I found their arguments deeply convincing. Lawyers are not just professionals; they are defenders of rights. If they can be treated as suspects for doing their job, no citizen can feel secure seeking legal help.
The Government’s Response
The Union of India and the State of Gujarat, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, did not entirely disagree.
They accepted that lawyer-client confidentiality is a vital part of justice. But they argued that the privilege is not absolute. If a lawyer becomes an active participant in a crime or helps in furthering an illegal act, then the protection does not apply.
Their main objection was to the idea of creating special procedures or guidelines for lawyers. The government said that existing laws already provide adequate safeguards, and any new rule might create unfair protection for one profession. Every citizen, they said, must be equally accountable under the law.
While that position sounds balanced in theory, I believe it misses the spirit of what makes advocacy unique. A lawyer is not just another citizen; they are an officer of the court, an essential part of justice. Their work often puts them in conflict with the state. That is precisely why they must be protected from intimidation.
Why the Supreme Court Quoted Shakespeare
Justice Chandran’s reference to Shakespeare was not poetic decoration. It carried a warning drawn from history.
In Henry VI, the rebels plot to destroy lawyers so that no one can stop their lawless rise. Quoting that line, Justice Chandran reminded us that when those in power want to suppress freedom, they start by silencing the lawyers.
He also quoted American judge John Paul Stevens, who once said that “disposing of lawyers is a step toward totalitarian government.”
The message was clear: the freedom of lawyers is not a private privilege, it is a public safeguard.
Reading the judgment, I felt proud that our Court recognised this. Because the day we stop protecting lawyers, we stop protecting justice itself.
What the Court Held
The Supreme Court’s conclusions were both clear and measured.
It held that:
- No investigating agency can summon a lawyer simply because they represented an accused or gave legal advice. Doing so is illegal and amounts to interference with justice.
- If there is specific evidence that a lawyer has crossed the line and participated in a crime, they can be summoned, but only with written approval from a senior officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) and with clear reasons recorded.
- The privilege of client-lawyer communication is not the lawyer’s personal right; it belongs to the client and cannot be violated except in very limited circumstances.
The Court decided not to frame new guidelines, as it found the existing law sufficient. Instead, it sent a strong reminder to investigative agencies to act with restraint and respect for professional privilege.
The Larger Message
This was more than a legal decision. It was a moral statement about the role of lawyers in a democracy. Justice Chandran wrote that lawyers are not merely professionals but “guardians of freedom.” He quoted Alexis de Tocqueville, who called lawyers “The only aristocratic element that can be safely blended into democracy.”
I could not agree more. Lawyers hold a mirror to power. They stand between the state and the citizen. Their independence ensures that every voice, even that of the accused or the unpopular, is heard. When the state uses its machinery to frighten or punish them, it endangers the very foundation of rule of law.
The Court’s tone throughout the judgment was not defensive but respectful. It acknowledged that, like every profession, law has its share of bad actors. But it firmly rejected the idea that the wrongdoings of a few can justify blanket suspicion against the entire Bar.
What This Means for Ordinary Citizens
Many people might see this case as an internal fight within the legal system. I see it differently. This judgment protects not only lawyers but everyone who might one day need one, which is to say, all of us.
When people fear speaking openly to their lawyers, they lose their first defence against injustice. Without confidentiality, even the innocent would hesitate to tell the truth, and the guilty would have no reason to trust the process. The system collapses when trust disappears.
As someone who has seen lawyers face harassment simply for representing difficult clients, I know how thin that line can be. This judgment restores balance. It reminds the police and investigating agencies that the rule of law cannot survive on fear.
Why This Judgment Matters
For me, this decision stands out not only for its legal reasoning but for its humanity. It recognises that the legal profession is built on trust, between lawyer and client, between Bar and Bench, and between citizen and Constitution.
It tells us that power must have boundaries. The Court observed that the power to summon is not the power to intimidate. It cannot be used to erode the protections that make justice possible.
The judgment’s closing words, that as long as the Constitutional Courts stand, the privilege of lawyers will remain safe, are both a reassurance and a responsibility.
This is not about giving lawyers immunity. It is about preserving fairness for everyone. Because a society that distrusts its lawyers will soon find itself distrusting its laws.
A Personal Reflection
Reading this judgment, I felt a mix of pride and relief. Pride that our Supreme Court spoke with such moral clarity, and relief that it reaffirmed something many of us fear is slowly fading, faith in institutions.
I have always believed that the strength of a democracy is measured not by how it treats the powerful, but by how it protects those who defend the powerless. Lawyers, for all their flaws, are the thin line that holds that promise together.
When Shakespeare’s rebel said, “Let’s kill all the lawyers.” he was not making a joke. He was revealing a plan to kill freedom. Justice Chandran’s judgment, centuries later, gives that line its rightful meaning not as a threat, but as a reminder.
If we ever wish to preserve justice, we must protect those who fight for it, even when they stand in the way of power. Because when lawyers fall silent, the law itself begins to die.
Case Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues |SMW (Cal) 2/2025
Read Attachment
