New Delhi, November 1, 2025 (Bharat Khabarnama Bureau) : In a powerful defense of legal confidentiality, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that investigating agencies cannot summon lawyers to force them to reveal details of advice given to their clients, establishing robust safeguards to protect the sanctity of attorney-client relationships. The landmark judgment emphasizes that this privilege forms the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that citizens can seek frank counsel without fear of exposure to investigative authorities.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, firmly stated that the privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam belongs entirely to the client, with lawyers bearing a corresponding duty to maintain confidentiality. The court warned that this fundamental protection would be undermined by what it described as “valiant investigators or overzealous litigating parties” attempting to breach this privilege under the pretext of evidence collection.
While clarifying that lawyers are not immune from investigation when personally suspected of criminal activities, the court drew a clear distinction regarding their professional role. It expressed concern that summoning advocates merely to extract client communications or legal strategy would have a chilling effect on the legal profession and ultimately weaken the right to defense.
The ruling emerged from a suo motu case initiated after recent instances where enforcement agencies sought to question lawyers about their client consultations. The court determined that specific guidelines for the legal community were unnecessary since sufficient protections could be secured through interpreting existing statutes.
The bench mandated that no police or investigating officer can summon an advocate for case-related information unless explicitly invoking one of the narrow exceptions under Section 132, such as communications intended to facilitate illegal activities. Even then, the summons must precisely state the grounds for the exception and secure prior written approval from a superior officer of at least Superintendent of Police rank. Any such summons remains open to challenge under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Recognizing the particular sensitivity of digital data, the court established elaborate protocols for handling lawyers’ electronic devices. It directed that any agency seeking access to laptops or phones must first present them to the jurisdictional court. The court must then conduct hearings with both the advocate and affected client before considering access approval. If granted, any decryption or data extraction must occur in their presence with technical experts of their choosing, ensuring information about other clients remains completely protected.
