Facts Of The Case:
An FIR was registered at the Odhav Police Station in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other statutes concerning a loan agreement dispute. Following the arrest of an accused, an Advocate filed a successful bail application before the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Police issued a notice to the Advocate under Section 179 of the BNSS, directing his appearance to “know true details of the facts and circumstances” of the case. The Advocate challenged this notice before the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed the petition, reasoning that non-cooperation with the summons had stalled the investigation and that no fundamental right was violated as the notice was issued to him in the capacity of a witness. Aggrieved, the Advocate approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition. A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, recognizing the issue’s overarching public importance concerning the summons power of investigating agencies over legal counsel, referred the matter to a larger bench. This led to the suo motu cognizance and consolidation of the case to comprehensively address the limits of such power vis-à-vis the sacrosanct attorney-client privilege.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began when an Advocate challenged a summons issued to him by the Ahmedabad Police under Section 179 of the BNSS, 2023, in the Gujarat High Court. The High Court dismissed his petition, concluding that the summons was validly issued to him as a witness and that his non-cooperation had stalled the investigation. The Advocate then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court (Diary No. 33845 of 2025). A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the SLP, identified fundamental questions of public importance regarding the power of investigating agencies to summon legal counsel. Consequently, the Bench referred the matter for a comprehensive examination by a larger bench. This referral led the Supreme Court to initiate a suo motu writ petition (Criminal No. 2 of 2025) to broadly adjudicate the issue. The suo motu petition was then heard along with the original SLP and a connected civil writ petition, culminating in the present landmark judgement by a three-judge bench.
READ ALSO:Clarity in Tender Documents is Key: Supreme Court Quashes Bid Rejection Over Ambiguous Term
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgement. It emphatically affirmed that the attorney-client privilege under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) is a sacrosanct and fundamental principle essential for the administration of justice and the accused’s right to a meaningful defense. The Court observed that directly summoning an Advocate to disclose professional communications seriously impinges upon this privilege and the fundamental rights of both the lawyer under Article 19(1)(g) and the client under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.The Bench distinguished the present case from precedents like Jacob Mathew and Vishaka, noting there was no legislative vacuum or unique need for expertise that warranted the Court framing entirely new guidelines under Article 142. It held that the existing statutory scheme under Sections 132-134 BSA and the judicial remedy under Section 528 of the BNSS provide sufficient safeguards. However, the Court crucially observed that any summons invoking an exception to the privilege must explicitly state the factual basis for doing so, require prior written approval from a senior police officer (not below Superintendent of Police), and remain subject to judicial review. It also clarified that the privilege does not extend to the physical production of documents or digital devices, which is governed separately, and does not cover in-house legal counsels who are full-time salaried employees.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned summons issued to the Advocate. It answered the first referred question emphatically, holding that an investigating agency cannot directly summon a lawyer appearing in a case to elicit case details, unless it is based on a specific exception under Section 132 of the BSA. For such an exception, the summons must explicitly state the justifying facts, be issued with the prior written approval of a senior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, and remains subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court answered the second question by stating that sufficient judicial oversight is already prescribed by statute and declined to create new guidelines or a peer-review committee, affirming that the existing legal framework is adequate to protect the attorney-client privilege. The Court also issued specific ancillary directions regarding the production of documents, digital devices, and clarified that the statutory privilege does not extend to in-house legal counsel.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues. (with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 632 of 2025 & Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9334 of 2025) Citation:2025 INSC 1275 Appeal Number:Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025 Date of Judgement:October 31, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B. R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N.V. Anjaria