Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

S. 132 : Professional communications-Advocate-Client Privilege-Summoning of Advocates-Investigating Officer cannot directly summon a lawyer appearing for a party to elicit facts of the case-Privileged communication protected under S. 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023-Summons valid only if it falls within statutory exceptions and approved by a superior officer-No need for Vishaka-type guidelines as statutory safeguards under BNSS and BSA are adequate [, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 132, 133,134, 175, 179, 528, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S. 126, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), S.34, 304-A, Art.14, 15, 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21,142, Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Rules 1975 Rule 11 of Section 200 of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, titled ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’]
A suo motu writ petition was initiated by the Supreme Court on the issue of investigating agencies summoning advocates who represent accused persons or have given legal opinions. The matter arose from a notice issued to an advocate under S. 179 of the BNSS by the Ahmedabad Police to appear for questioning regarding a case in which he had appeared for the accused. The High Court refused to interfere. The Supreme Court held that compelling an advocate to disclose information received from a client would violate the statutory privilege under S. 132 of the BSA and the client’s fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(g), 20(3) and 21. It was observed that the advocate-client privilege is sacrosanct and extends even to advice not connected with pending litigation. Investigating agencies cannot summon an advocate merely for representing a client; only when the case falls within the statutory exceptions—such as communication made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or facts showing fraud or crime during engagement—can a summons be issued, that too with prior written approval of a superior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, recording reasons. The Court held that the existing statutory framework under Ss. 132-134 of the BSA and S. 528 of the BNSS provides sufficient safeguards, and hence, no guidelines like those in Vishaka or Jacob Mathew were warranted. The summons issued in the present case was quashed as illegal and violative of privilege.
In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2025, WP (civil) (No.632 of 2025 and SLP (Criminal) No.9334 of 2025 dt. 31-10-2025. (2025) INSC 1275 (SC)
[Coram : Hon’ble The Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria]