New Delhi, October 31: In a strong message to investigating agencies, the Supreme Court today ruled that summoning advocates who represent accused persons could infringe their clients’ fundamental rights and breach the sacred confidentiality between lawyer and client. The top court emphasized that such actions run contrary to the protections guaranteed under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) and the procedural framework of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, delivered the ruling while hearing a suo motu case concerning the summoning of advocates by investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Background
The controversy began when the ED summoned senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in connection with ongoing money-laundering investigations. The move sparked outrage in the legal community, prompting the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to term the summons a “disturbing trend” that threatened the independence of the legal profession.
Earlier this year, on June 20, the ED had issued an internal circular directing its officers not to summon advocates representing clients under investigation-unless expressly permitted by the agency’s Director. Despite that, instances of overreach persisted, leading to the present proceedings before the apex court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench made it clear that the right to counsel includes the right to confidential communication between the lawyer and client.
“The evidentiary process must align with procedural safeguards,” the bench noted. “An advocate cannot be compelled to disclose privileged information shared by their client. Investigating officers must not summon lawyers representing the accused, except under exceptional and clearly stated circumstances.”
The judges also discussed how the new BNSS regulates the handling of electronic evidence. According to the court, electronic devices seized during investigations must be presented before the jurisdictional court, not accessed directly by investigating officers.
“Regarding digital evidence, under the BNSS, devices should be produced only before the jurisdictional court,” the bench clarified. “If objections are overruled, such devices may be examined only in the presence of the concerned lawyer and the parties.”
At one point, Justice Chandran remarked that the court could not allow a situation where “defence counsel themselves start fearing summons” for doing their job. The courtroom saw several advocates from across India nodding in agreement.
Decision
Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court quashed the summons issued in the pending special leave petition, firmly stating that such actions “could infringe upon the fundamental rights of the accused who placed their trust in their lawyer.”
Read also:- Delhi High Court Bars Carrom Federation from Using ‘India’ in Name, Calls It a Private Body
The bench underscored that lawyer-client privilege is not a luxury but a constitutional safeguard ensuring fair trial and justice.
“We have quashed the summons issued in the SLP,” the order read. “Such summons would violate the statutory protections available to advocates and amount to an infringement of the rights of the accused.”
The verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications on how agencies like the ED, CBI, and state police conduct their investigations going forward. Legal experts say this judgment restores confidence in the sanctity of the advocate-client relationship - a cornerstone of India’s justice system.
Case: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues
Case Number: Suo Motu Writ (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
