Investigating officers conducting an inquiry into a cognizable offence shall not summon an Advocate representing an accused to obtain case-related information, except where the situation squarely falls within one of the recognised exceptions under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Supreme Court.

In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation.

Decided on 31 October 2025

Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N V Anjaria.

Summary of the Judgment

Background

The case arose from a summons issued by the police to an advocate representing an accused person, asking him to appear to “give true details of the facts and circumstances” of the case. The High Court refused to quash the summons, leading to the present suo motu proceedings by the Supreme Court.

Core Issue

Whether the police or investigating agencies can directly summon an advocate who is:

Advising a client, or

Appearing as counsel for an accused,

to disclose information relating to the case.

Key Findings & Principles

Advocates Cannot Be Summoned for Information Protected by Legal Privilege

The Court held emphatically that:

Police cannot summon a lawyer merely because they represent or advised a person in a case.

Professional communications between client and advocate are protected under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and cannot be compelled to be disclosed, except in limited statutory

Limited Exceptions Allowed

A lawyer may only be summoned if:

The communication was made in furtherance of an illegal act, or

The advocate observed a fraud or crime committed during representation, or

The client expressly consents to disclosure.

These must be clearly stated and justified in the summons. 

Safeguards Before Summons

Any summons to an advocate must:

Have written approval of a senior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police;

Clearly record reasons showing the case fits an exception under Section 132;

Be subject to judicial review under Section 528 BNSS if challenged. 

No Need for New Guidelines or Oversight Committees

The Court declined requests from Bar bodies seeking:

Prior judicial approval before summoning advocates, or

Professional review committees.

It held existing law adequately protects legal privilege, and misuse can be challenged before courts. 

The Summons in the Present Case Was Held Illegal

The Court quashed the specific summons because:

It sought privileged information,

Had no legal basis, and

Reflected misuse of police authority.

Constitutional Context

The Court reaffirmed that:

Right to legal representation is part of Articles 14, 21 and 22,

Attorney-client confidentiality safeguards the rule of law, and

Forcing disclosure violates the client’s protection against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)).

Final Declared Legal Position

Police cannot summon a lawyer regarding information obtained through professional engagement.

Summons may be issued only in exceptional circumstances, with recorded justification and SP-level approval.

Any dispute can be challenged under Section 528 BNSS.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court strongly protected the sanctity of lawyer–client privilege and held that investigating agencies cannot harass or compel advocates to disclose privileged information. The judgment reinforces the independence of the legal profession as essential to fair trial rights and administration of justice.