Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has issued detailed directions regulating the production of advocates' documents and digital devices that may contain client information.

The Court clarified that documents belonging to a client but held by an advocate are not covered by privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), whether in civil or criminal proceedings. However, such production must follow strict procedural safeguards.

In criminal cases, if an advocate is directed to produce a client document, it must be done before the court under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 165 of the BSA, ensuring judicial supervision. In civil proceedings, production will be governed by Section 165 BSA and Order 16 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Upon production, the Court must hear both the advocate and the client before ruling on objections regarding production or admissibility.

Crucially, the Supreme Court has laid down special safeguards for digital devices:

If an investigating officer directs the production of an advocate's digital device under Section 94 BNSS, the device must be produced only before the jurisdictional court.

The court must issue notice to the client concerned and hear both the advocate and the client before allowing discovery from the device.

If objections are overruled, the device may be examined only in the presence of the advocate and the client, who may seek the assistance of a digital technology expert of their choice.

The Court further directed that confidentiality of other clients' data must not be compromised, and only the information specifically sought and deemed admissible by the court may be disclosed.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the directions in the suo motu case taken by the Court on the issue of investigating officers issuing summons to advocates in criminal cases.

The directions regarding production of documents and digital devices, as pronounced by the bench, are as follows :

1. Production of documents in the possession of the Advocate or the client will not be covered under the privilege conferred by Section 132, either in a civil case or a criminal case.

2. In a criminal case, the production of a document directed by a court or an officer shall be complied with by production before the Court under Section 94 of the BNSS being regulated also by Section 165 of the BSA.

3. In a civil case, the production of document shall be regulated by Section 165 of BSA and Order 16 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. On production of such documents, it shall be upon the Court to decide any objections with respect to the order to produce and the admissibility of the document after hearing the advocate and the party whom the advocate represents.

4. The production of digital devices under Section 94 BNSS, if directed by an investigating officer, the direction shall only be to produce it before the jurisdictional court.

5. On production of a digital device by the advocate before the Court, the Court shall issue notice to the party with respect to whom the details are sought to be discovered from the digital device, and hear the party and the advocate on any objection to the production of the digital device, discovery from it and the admissibility of that discovery.

6. If the objections are overruled by the Court, the device shall be opened only in the presence of the party and the advocate, who will be enabled due assistance of a person having expertise in digital technology of their choice. While examining the digital device, care shall be taken by the Court not to impact the confidentiality with respect to the other clients of the advocate, and disclosure shall be confined to what is sought by the investigating officer, if it is found to be permissible and admissible.

The Court also issued directions to regulate the issuance of summons, by ordering that advocates can be summoned only if the matter fell within the exceptions to attorney-client privilege under Section 132 of the BSA. Also, prior approval of a superior officer not below the rank of SP is necessary to issue summons to the advocate.

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

Click here to read the judgment