New Delhi: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that investigating officers cannot summon lawyers representing accused persons except in cases that clearly fall within specific legal exceptions. The bench added that any summons issued to an advocate must explicitly mention the applicable exception under law.
The decision was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria. The court observed that calling lawyers for questioning could infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused and undermine the statutory confidentiality that exists between an advocate and their client. The ruling came while quashing a summons that had been issued in a related matter.
The bench clarified that investigating officers cannot demand client-related details from advocates unless the situation meets the exceptions laid out under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which safeguards privileged communications between lawyers and their clients.
The order was issued in a suo motu case where the court was examining whether investigative agencies have the authority to summon lawyers who provide legal advice or represent clients during ongoing investigations.
The Supreme Court on Friday laid down that when investigating agencies seek information from lawyers in exceptional circumstances, they must ensure that the confidentiality of other clients is not compromised and that their questions remain strictly limited to what is necessary for the investigation.
The court’s directions came in connection with suo motu proceedings initiated on July 8, after it took note of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for offering legal opinions or representing clients in ongoing probes.
Following widespread criticism from the legal fraternity, the ED eventually withdrew its summons to the two lawyers. At that time, the court had remarked that it serves as the custodian of citizens’ rights.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta underlined that lawyers form an essential part of the justice delivery system and should be afforded adequate protection in that role. He urged the court to frame clear principles that balance the needs of investigations with professional safeguards, emphasising that lawyers should not be called in merely to provide legal advice, TNIE reported.
The bench, however, clarified that such protection would not extend to situations where an advocate crosses professional boundaries — for instance, by advising on the fabrication or tampering of evidence. The judges noted that there cannot be “two classes of lawyers,” stressing the importance of having a uniform legal standard.
Senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Vikas Singh, representing the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and advocate Vipin Nair, appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAoRA), strongly opposed the ED’s move.
They warned that summoning lawyers for their professional advice could have a chilling effect on the legal profession. Singh cautioned that if such practices were allowed, lawyers would hesitate to represent clients in sensitive criminal cases.