Case Report: Supreme Court on Protection of Advocate–Client Privilege (2025)

Case Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues, SMW (Crl) No. 2 of 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: 31 October 2025
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC ___ (awaiting publication)

Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court of India took suo motu notice of concerns from Bar members about situations where police officers and investigating agencies summoned advocates. They wanted advocates to share information about their clients or the legal advice given to them.¹

Bar Councils and legal groups protested these practices. They claimed these practices broke the advocate-client privilege outlined in Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They also argued that such actions weakened the profession’s ethical standards.²

The Court started proceedings called In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues. The aim was to clarify the limits of investigative powers concerning practising advocates.

Issues for Consideration

1. Whether the police or investigating agencies are empowered under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon an advocate for information relating to a client or legal advice rendered.
2. Whether such a summons violates Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which protects professional communications.
3. Whether compelling advocates to disclose client-related information infringes upon the independence of the Bar and the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments Advanced

For the Bar Associations and Advocates

Counsel for different Bar Councils argued that forcing advocates to reveal any communication related to clients violates Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which establishes the principle of professional privilege.³ They claimed that this overreach in investigations weakens Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, limiting advocates’ ability to practice their profession freely and threatening client confidentiality. The petitioners stressed that professional secrecy is essential for effective representation and the right to legal counsel.⁴

For the State / Investigating Authorities

The State argued that the police have the authority under Section 160 CrPC to summon “any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.”⁵

 However, it acknowledged that this power should not be used to force the disclosure of communications that are protected by legal privilege. The State backed the creation of guidelines to prevent misuse while maintaining valid investigative functions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that investigating agencies cannot summon or interrogate advocates for the purpose of obtaining information about their clients or legal advice rendered to them.⁶

The Court observed that such actions strike at the heart of the advocate–client relationship and amount to a violation of professional privilege protected under Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

It directed that:

1. Police officers and investigating agencies shall refrain from summoning advocates representing clients for information related to their professional engagement.
2. Any attempt to compel disclosure of privileged communication will be deemed illegal and violative of the Evidence Act.
3. The protection does not extend to cases where an advocate is personally involved in criminal activity or where privilege is misused to shield unlawful acts.⁷

It is important to note that the Court’s protection does not automatically extend to in-house counsel employed by corporations. As held in several precedents, in-house legal officers who are full-time employees do not enjoy the same professional privilege as practising advocates. This distinction arises because their primary duty lies with the employer rather than the court, and hence they do not fall strictly within the definition of an ‘advocate’ under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court reasoned that confidentiality between advocate and client is the bedrock of the legal profession, ensuring that clients can communicate freely without fear of disclosure.⁸

Referring to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Bench highlighted that advocates are legally bound not to reveal communications made in confidence by their clients unless expressly authorised.⁹

The Court further cited the Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, which enjoin advocates to maintain client confidentiality as part of professional conduct.¹⁰ Any investigative attempt to breach that confidentiality would violate both statutory and ethical obligations and hinder the administration of justice.

The Bench also invoked Article 21, affirming that confidentiality in legal consultation forms an intrinsic part of the right to privacy and fair trial.¹¹

Ratio Decidendi

An advocate cannot be summoned or compelled by police or investigative agencies to disclose any communication, advice, or information received from a client during the course of professional engagement. Such compulsion violates Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and infringes the constitutional guarantees under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.

Broader Significance

This judgment strengthens the independence of the legal profession and protects the importance of the advocate-client privilege in India’s criminal justice system. It sets a clear limit between proper investigation and professional freedom, stopping the abuse of police powers against advocates.

The decision confirms that trust, confidentiality, and fearless advocacy are vital to the rule of law. By protecting advocates from coercive summons, the Court has ensured that citizens can receive honest legal advice, which is essential for democratic justice.

However, while the Court’s intent to protect professional privilege is commendable, a nuanced concern arises about its possible misuse. There is a fine line between genuinely keeping things confidential and using privilege to cover up wrongdoing. The ruling, therefore, calls for a balanced approach that supports advocates’ independence while ensuring accountability in rare cases of criminal involvement. The judgment’s focus on professional ethics reaffirms that lawyers serve as officers of the court, not just representatives for clients. At its core, this verdict restores trust in the legal system by supporting advocacy as a foundation of justice. At the same time, it reminds the legal community that privilege should promote justice, not block it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case strengthens the important nature of legal privilege and the ethical duty of confidentiality. By stopping investigative overreach, it maintains the balance between state power and professional independence. This ensures that advocates can perform their duties without fear or interference.

The decision serves as a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, justice must not only be done but also be seen to protect those who defend it.

References 

1. The Leaflet (2025) Summons to Advocates Over Legal Advice: SC Reserves Judgment, available at: https://theleaflet.in (Accessed 3 November 2025).
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s 126.
3. Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Section II, Rule 17.
4. Constitution of India, arts 19(1)(g), 21.
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s 160.
6. In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases & Related Issues (2025) SMW (Crl) No. 2 of 2025, Supreme Court of India.
7. Times of India (2025) Probe Agencies, Police Can’t Issue Summons to Advocates: SC, 26 June.
8. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (2025) SC Intervenes on Overreach in Summoning Lawyers, available at: https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com.
9. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s 126.
10. Bar Council of India Rules (2020), Part VI, Chapter II.
11. K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.