Context:
Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in a significant observation, clarified that the act of police or prosecuting agencies summoning lawyers merely for providing legal advice to their clients violates the fundamental principles of law and the professional privileges of advocates. This observation came in response to an incident where an advocate from Gujarat was summoned by the police for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case.
Recent Developments:
On 12th and 18th June 2025, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to senior Supreme Court advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in connection with the ESOP allocation case of Care Health Insurance Ltd. This led to widespread discontent among lawyers, prompting strong criticism from the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Advocate-Client Communication: A Privilege
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has now been replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Section 132 of the new law clearly states that communication between an advocate and their client is privileged and cannot be disclosed to a third party. This privilege applies not only to oral but also to written and electronic communications.
However, three exceptions are provided:
1. If the client consents to waive this privilege,
2. If the communication pertains to an unlawful purpose,
3. If the advocate becomes aware of the commission of a crime during the course of their service.
This privilege is exclusive to advocates and does not extend to chartered accountants, company secretaries, or other professionals.
Judicial Directions and Analysis:
Various High Courts across India have repeatedly asserted that lawyers cannot be summoned merely for rendering legal advice.
1. A.V. Pavithran v. CBI (2024):
The Bombay High Court quashed the summons issued by the CBI to Advocate Pavithran in Goa, affirming that “once privileged, always privileged.” The court also stated that no advocate is permitted to disclose information obtained during the course of their professional duty.
2. Praram Infra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025):
Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the summons issued to Advocate Rahul Maheshwari, stating that if the advocate is neither an accused nor a witness, such summons are inappropriate.
Conclusion:
A judicial system where lawyers can freely defend their clients is a cornerstone of democracy. If advocates are repeatedly subjected to summons or interrogations, it severely undermines the independence of their profession, the privacy of the client, and the right to access justice.
