Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today, while issuing directions to protect the advocates from arbitrary summons by investigating authorities, observed that Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provisions S.132-134 are intended to shield lawyers from unnecessary bullying for disclosing privileged communications with their clients.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the decision in the suo motu case taken by the Court over the issue of investigating agencies arbitrarily summoning advocates representing the accused.

The judgment, authored by Justice Chandran, highlights that S.126 of the Indian Evidence Act (S.132(1),(2) of BSA now) is intended to protect advocates, who are part of the justice administration system. Terming the deceitful few advocates as the 'occasional black sheep', the Court acknowledged the presence of such professionals within the system.

"The occasional black sheep who tread the uneven, muddy lanes of deceit, in purported protection of the interest of the client, which though a minority, does, sadly exist in our system. We say 'our system' with emphasis since Judges cannot distance themselves from the fraternity of lawyers, to which they once belonged and to which they owe their present status.

"The provision providing protection to the privileged communications between the lawyer and the client is not to protect those deviants but to ensure that the vast majority, who are day in and day out, involved in the task of administration of justice are not victimised or bullied into making disclosures of their communications with their clients, merely for reason of having represented a client of questionable conduct or having some ill-repute or disrepute."

However, it also relied upon Rule 11 of Section 20 of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, titled 'Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette' to add that it is the statutory duty of the lawyers to protect his client's communications as far as the law permits.

The said rule states : An Advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before which he proposes to practice at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief.

The bench observed :

" There is an obligation cast on him to provide his client the maximum protection as by law established, in furtherance of the client's cause. It is hence the codified obligation, while maintaining absolute sincerity to the cause of justice, ensuring strict and absolute confidentiality with the communications made by his client regarding the cause, for which he is engaged."

The bench concluded that S.132-134 BNS has to be viewed as an immunity to both the client as well as the advocate.

"Sections 132 to 134 is incorporated, not only in protection of the client but also to provide an immunity to the Advocate from making any such disclosure."

The Court also took note of the the right of a person to legal representation, which is enshrined in the Constitution itself.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

Also read : No Summons To Advocates Except Under S.132 BSA Exceptions; Prior Approval Of Superior Officer Mandatory: Supreme Court Issues Directions

In-House Counsel Not 'Advocate'; Their Communication With Employer Not Protected Under S.132 BSA : Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues Directions On Production Of Advocates' Digital Devices For Investigation; Says Clients' Documents Not Covered By S.132 BSA