Professional Misconduct - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

17Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

The Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot directly summon an Advocate to disclose privileged communications with a client under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Such a summons violates the attorney-client privilege and the accused's fundamental rights. Any exception must be explicitly justified, approved by a senior officer, and is subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the BNSS. 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 C...

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...

Supreme Court Slams Trend of “Transfer Culture” and Baseless Criticism of Judges

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a lawyer's primary duty is to the court, not the client, especially when allegations scandalize the judiciary. Signing pleadings with unverified, scurrilous remarks against judges constitutes contempt. The Court emphasized that such actions, even under client instruction, violate professional ethics and the majesty of law. Facts Of The Case: In Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025, the petitioner, N. Peddi Raju, sought to transfer his case, Criminal Petition No. 4162 of 2020, from the Telangana High Court to the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench. The primary grounds for this request were allegations of bias and procedural discrimination against the learned Single Judge hearing the matter. The petitioner specifically contended that his argu...