Supreme Court to pronounce judgment on summoning advocates, shaping guidelines to safeguard attorney-client privilege and ensure independence of the legal profession.

SUPREME COURT TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON SUMMONING ADVOCATES

Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.

CASE OVERVIEW :

CASE NAME : In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW (Cal) 2/2025

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria will deliver its verdict in a suo motu case concerning investigating agencies issuing summons to lawyers for advice rendered to their clients . The Court had reserved the judgment on August 12, 2025, after hearing submissions from Attorney General R . Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and several senior advocates including Vikas Singh and Vipin Nair . The bench had indicated that guidelines may be laid down to protect attorney-client privilege and preserve the independence of the legal profession .

Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles

KEY ASPECTS :

The issue arose after a series of incidents where investigating agencies summoned lawyers in connection with their clients’ cases . This led to widespread concern across the legal fraternity regarding interference in professional independence and confidentiality between an advocate and their client .

• The controversy began when the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, which was later withdrawn following protests .
• The ED subsequently issued a circular requiring prior approval from its Director before summoning any advocate .
• Later, a bench led by Justice KV Viswanathan raised serious concern over such summons observing that they could undermine the independence of the legal profession and erode public confidence in the justice system .
• The suo motu case was formally registered on July 4, 2025, to address these systemic issues .

LEGAL INSIGHTS :

The Court examined multiple constitutional and statutory provisions to balance attorney-client privilege with the powers of investigating agencies . The arguments focused on protecting legal counsel from undue harassment while upholding accountability under the law .

• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution ensures the freedom to practice any profession, including advocacy, while Article 21 protects the right to personal liberty and fair procedure. Summoning advocates without due cause may violate these fundamental rights .
• Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects communications between advocates and their clients, emphasizing confidentiality and professional secrecy .
• The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) proposed a safeguard requiring Magistrate’s approval before any advocate is summoned, drawing parallel to the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) case, where FIRs against doctors required expert committee review .
• However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R. Venkataramani opposed Magisterial oversight arguing that it could violate Article 14 by giving special privileges to a class of professionals and hinder investigation in genuine cases .

COURT’S VERDICT :

The Supreme Court of India will pronounce its judgment on October 31, 2025, setting out clear guidelines to prevent misuse of investigative powers against advocates . The verdict is expected to uphold attorney-client privilege, reinforce the independence of the legal profession and ensure that law enforcement operates within constitutional boundaries .

Source – Supreme Court of India 

Read also – Constitution of India

The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org