Beyond Disclosure: The Supreme Court Fortifies Advocate-Client Privilege Against State Overreach

Introduction: Reconciling Privilege and Procedure

The bedrock of any adversarial legal system is the attorney-client privilege. For centuries, this sanctity of confidence, rooted in honour and professional ethics, has been treated as indispensable to the effective administration of justice. It guarantees that a client can communicate “freely” and “fully” with their legal advisor without fear of subsequent disclosure, ensuring candid preparation for litigation. However, this centuries-old courtesy now faces new pressures: the expanding reach of investigating agencies and the complexities of modern corporate legal structures.

The recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court of India in In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025) delivered on October 31, 2025, represents a landmark judicial effort to harmonize this foundational evidentiary rule with contemporary procedural rules.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, was tasked with addressing the “unconscionable, outrageous interference” caused by investigating agencies arbitrarily summoning advocates. While declining to create a new layer of magisterial or peer-group oversight, the Court successfully embedded necessary safeguards within the newly enacted legal codes, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

This judgment’s enduring legacy, however, rests not just on curtailing investigatory overreach, but on two high-impact rulings that address the evolution of the legal profession itself:

• The definitive denial of Section 132 BSA privilege to In-house Counsel
• The creation of strict judicial safeguards for the production of advocates’ digital devices

This analysis decodes how the Court struck a balance that simultaneously protects the client’s rights, draws a sharp line for corporate legal departments, and prepares Indian jurisprudence for the digital age.

Doctrine Of Attorney-Client Privilege In India

The doctrine of attorney-client privilege in India has deep roots in both statutory law and judicial precedent. Landmark cases such as State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan have consistently affirmed the sanctity of confidential communications between an advocate and their client, recognizing that such privilege is essential for the effective administration of justice. The recent judgment by the Apex Court in continues this tradition, while also addressing the evolving realities of modern legal practice.

Global Perspective On Privilege

Globally, the treatment of attorney-client privilege varies significantly. In jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom, in-house counsel are often afforded privilege, provided they are acting in their capacity as legal advisors and not as business managers. The European Court of Justice, in Akzo Nobel Limited v. European Commission, has emphasized the importance of independence in determining the scope of privilege, a principle echoed by the Supreme Court in its recent ruling.

However, the Indian judgment diverges from these global trends by strictly limiting privilege to advocates as defined under the Advocates Act, 1961, thereby excluding in-house counsel from the ambit of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

The Core Privilege: Limitations on Summoning Practicing Advocates

The primary question before the apex court was whether an investigating agency, such as the police, could directly summon a lawyer merely because of their professional association with a client. The Court’s response to this was an emphatic ‘No’. The Court observed that the position of trust occupied by the Advocate vis-à-vis their client cannot be put to test by an attempt to breach professional confidence.

The ruling is anchored in Section 132 of the BSA (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), which enshrines the statutory privilege. This section operates primarily as a protection conferred upon the client, obligating the Advocate not to disclose confidential professional communications made “in the course and for the purpose of his service”. The protection is so robust that an Advocate can, and must, invoke this privilege even in the client’s absence, acting in the client’s best interest.

The Supreme Court explicitly fortified this statutory shield by grounding it in multiple Fundamental Rights, confirming that professional communications are part of the constitutional right to counsel and fair process.

The Supreme Court established a link between the constitutional right against self- incrimination under Article 20(3) and Section 132 BSA. The Court emphasized that it is unlawful to indirectly compel a person to incriminate themselves by forcing their counsel to disclose confidential instructions or advice. The Supreme Court also stated that advocates cannot fully exercise their right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution if they are subjected to arbitrary coercive actions, and recognized the right to be represented by an advocate as an integral part of ‘due process’, as enshrined in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

Exceptions and Mandatory Procedural Safeguards

The privilege, however, is not absolute. Section 132 itself carves out two crucial exceptions which permit disclosure:

• Any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose.
• Any fact observed by the Advocate showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service.

To prevent arbitrary use of these exceptions, the Supreme Court introduced mandatory procedural safeguards, effectively imposing self-regulation on the investigating agencies. The Court directed that:

• An Investigating Officer (IO) or Station House Officer shall not issue a summons to an Advocate to know the details of the case, unless the matter is covered under an exception under Section 132.
• A summons, if issued under any of the exceptions, must explicitly specify the facts on which the exception under Section 132 is sought to be relied upon.
• The issuance of such a summons must be with the prior approval and written satisfaction of a hierarchical Superior Officer, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police (SP).
• Any summons issued will be subject to judicial review at the instance of the Advocate or the client under Section 528 of the BNSS.

These directions establish that the power of an Investigating Officer (IO) to summon witnesses under Section 179 of the BNSS, when directed at an Advocate in a professional capacity, is not a “blanket power” but one strictly fettered by the statutory provisions of the BSA. The Court ensured that the “power to summon… is not the power to interfere with the privileged communications between a lawyer and client, as long as the Constitutional Courts sit”.

The Definitive Line: Status of the In-house Counsel

The most impactful and arguably controversial aspect of the judgment is the Court’s definitive pronouncement on the status of in-house counsel and their entitlement to the attorney-client privilege under Indian law. The General Counsels Association of India, intervening in the matter, asserted that their members—who perform all duties of a legal advisor short of litigation—should be covered under Sections 132 and 134 of the BSA.

Denying Privilege Under Section 132 BSA

The Supreme Court rejected this claim, holding that communications between an in-house counsel and their employer are not protected by the privilege under Section 132 BSA. This conclusion hinges on a strict statutory interpretation of who qualifies as an ‘Advocate’ under the law:

• An in-house counsel is a full-time salaried employee, drawing a regular salary.
• This status takes them away from the definition of an Advocate practicing in Courts as defined under the Advocates Act, 1961.
• The Court explicitly noted that under the Bar Council of India Rules (Rule 49), a person in full-time salaried employment is obliged to cease to practice as an Advocate and cannot function independently.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny privilege to in-house counsel under Section 132 BSA has sparked considerable debate within the legal community. While the judgment is grounded in a strict interpretation of statutory definitions, it creates a conceptual vacuum that may not align with the commercial realities of contemporary corporate practice. In-house counsel play a crucial role in ensuring legal compliance and providing strategic advice, often handling sensitive information that is vital to the functioning of corporate entities.

Rationale: Independence as the Litmus Test

The core rationale for denying the privilege is the lack of professional independence. Quoting and approving the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Akzo Noble Limited v. European Commission, the Bench highlighted that a salaried, in-house lawyer does not enjoy the “same degree of independence” as an external lawyer.

“An In-house counsel though is engaged in the job of advising his employer on questions of law would even then be influenced by the commercial and business strategies pursued by his employer and would always be beholden to his employer and obliged to protect their interest.”

This financial and structural dependence is seen to compromise the requisite independent fiduciary duty owed by an advocate to the court and the law.

Limited Protection Under Section 134 BSA

Crucially, the Court clarified that in-house counsel are not left entirely without protection. They are entitled to the limited protection under Section 134 BSA. This section, which speaks of a ‘legal adviser’, prevents the forced disclosure of confidential communications made to the legal advisor of their employer. However, this limited protection cannot be claimed for communications that occur directly between the employer and the in-house counsel themselves.

The ruling thus draws an artificial distinction—one that preserves the historical, independent character of advocacy, but which may be deemed inconsistent with the modern reality where in-house teams are crucial to corporate legal compliance.

Given India’s aspirations to become a hub for international commercial transactions and disputes, there is a growing need for legislative reform to bridge this gap. Parliament may consider extending statutory privilege to legally qualified salaried employees, aligning India’s position with certain global jurisdictions and ensuring predictability in cross-border legal advice. Such an amendment would not only enhance the protection of confidential communications but also promote greater transparency and accountability in corporate governance.

Safeguarding Electronic Evidence: The Digital Device Mandate

In recognition of the shift from paper files to ubiquitous electronic data, the Supreme Court laid down crucial procedural safeguards for the production of an Advocate’s documents and, particularly, their digital devices.

Production of Client Documents

The Supreme Court distinguished between the disclosure of communications and the production of physical and/or electronic records by an advocate. The Court clarified the legal position that documents in the possession of the Advocate or the client are not covered under the privilege of Section 132 BSA. However, strict judicial protocol must be followed:

Judicial Protocol in Criminal Cases

• In a criminal case, any direction to produce a client’s document must be complied with by production before the Court under Section 94 of the BNSS. However, advocates cannot be compelled to reveal privileged communications contained within those documents.
• Upon production, it is the Court’s duty to decide on any objection concerning the document’s production and admissibility, after hearing both the Advocate and the party they represent.

Special Protocol for Digital Devices

Recognizing that a single digital device can hold voluminous, confidential information pertaining to all of an Advocate’s clients, the Court mandated a special, rigorous protocol:

This intricate protocol ensures that the IO’s power of discovery does not become a power to destroy the professional and constitutional rights of other, unrelated clients.

The new safeguards introduced by the Supreme Court for the production of digital devices and client documents have significant practical implications for both advocates and corporate legal departments. The requirement for prior approval by a Superintendent of Police (SP) and the elaborate judicial oversight for digital devices ensure that the power of investigation is not misused, thereby protecting the confidentiality of client data. However, the implementation of these safeguards poses challenges, particularly in the management of electronic evidence and the maintenance of a proper chain of custody.

Conclusion: A Balanced Framework and Future Trajectories

In conclusion, the judgment has set a new benchmark for the application of attorney-client privilege in the digital age. By harmonizing statutory provisions with contemporary procedural realities, the Court has struck a delicate balance between the rights of clients, the independence of the legal profession, and the demands of investigative agencies. The judgment’s enduring legacy lies not only in its immediate impact on the legal profession but also in its broader implications for the administration of justice in India.

The Court firmly rejected the creation of new guidelines under Article 142 (like those in Vishaka) after acknowledging the State’s argument that no legislative vacuum existed and that a new procedure would be counter-productive. The Supreme Court concluded that existing mechanisms, including Section 528 BNSS and the High Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction, provide sufficient oversight.

The definitive denial of Section 132 BSA privilege to in-house counsel is a bold and necessary step to preserve the independence of the legal profession. While this ruling may appear restrictive in the context of modern corporate practice, it is a timely reminder that the fiduciary duty owed by an advocate to the court and the law must remain paramount. The financial and structural dependence of in-house counsel on their employers creates a potential conflict of interest that cannot be ignored. By drawing a clear line between advocates and in-house counsel, the Court has safeguarded the integrity of legal advice and ensured that the privilege remains a shield for the client, not a sword for the employer.

Looking ahead, the judgment sets a precedent for the evolving regulation of the legal profession. It underscores the importance of balancing the rights of clients with the demands of investigative agencies, while also highlighting the need for continuous legislative and judicial review to address emerging issues in the digital age. Future research and legislative reform should focus on extending privilege to in-house counsel and harmonizing the provisions of Sections 132 and 134 BSA to ensure comprehensive protection for all legal advisors. Ultimately, the judgment successfully performs its primary duty: to ensure that the “greatest trust between men is the trust of giving counsel,” whether that counsel is summoned by a police officer or simply advising their client in confidence.

References

• In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025, 2025 INSC 1275, 2025
• State of Punjab v Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378.
• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46 of 2023. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, No. 47 of 2023.
• State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172. Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1999) 7 SCC 726.
• Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd. & Akcros Chemicals Ltd. v. European Comm’n, Case C-550/07 P, [2010] E.C.R. I-8301.
• Constitution Of India art. 20(3), art. 19(1)(g), art. 21, art. 22(1). The Advocates Act, 1961, No. 25.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011.