Supreme Court Upholds Sanctity of Lawyer-Client Privilege Against Investigative Overreach

On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a crucial order in a suo motu reference, In re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues, to protect the confidential relationship between lawyers and their clients from unwarranted interference by investigating agencies. The ruling addresses the problematic practice of police summoning advocates merely for providing legal advice or representation in criminal matters.

The Principle: Client Privilege Under BSA

The Court emphasized that the core of the issue is the client privilege established under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). This statutory provision ensures that an advocate cannot be compelled to disclose confidential communications made to them by their client.

The Supreme Court strictly curtailed the power of investigating officers (IOs) and Station House Officers (SHOs), holding that they must not issue summons to an advocate representing an accused simply "to know the details of the case."

Strict Safeguards for Summoning an Advocate

The Court clarified that an advocate can only be summoned if the case falls under the exceptions specified in Section 132 of the BSA (e.g., if the communication was made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, or if the lawyer is involved in wrongdoing). Even then, the following mandatory safeguards must be met:

Explicit Specification: The summons must explicitly state the facts upon which the exception under Section 132 is being invoked. Superior Consent: The summons must be issued only with the written consent of a superior officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), who must record their satisfaction.

Judicial Review: Any summons issued is subject to judicial review by the advocate or the client under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) or other relevant provisions.

The Court, however, noted that the production of documents held by the advocate or client is not automatically protected by the Section 132 privilege in either civil or criminal cases. Furthermore, the Court declined to frame separate guidelines, stating that the BSA's existing statutory scheme is adequate, and additional rules might improperly hinder the investigative powers provided under the BNSS.

Key Takeaways and Implications

This decision significantly reinforces the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of the advocate-client relationship.

For Lawyers and Clients: It provides a strong formal safeguard against arbitrary summons, enabling legal counsel to resist disclosure unless the specific statutory requirements are met. It ensures lawyers are not treated as mere extensions of investigating agencies. For Investigating Agencies: It mandates steps of caution—specifying facts and obtaining supervisory sign-off—meaning failure to follow these stipulated steps may render a summons invalid or challengeable.

Balancing Act: The ruling simultaneously protects confidentiality while acknowledging that the privilege is not absolute, permitting investigation when lawyers are suspected of being involved in wrongdoing, provided the strict safeguards are followed.
In summary, the Supreme Court has provided a robust check on investigative power, reinforcing client confidentiality while maintaining a balance that allows for necessary investigation under exceptional, tightly controlled circumstances.

• - Yuvika Singh Lathar 2nd Year Law Student at Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla.