Police Cannot Summon an Accused's Advocate for Case Details Except Under Section 132 Exceptions: Supreme Court

After an Advocate secured bail for an accused in a loan dispute FIR in Ahmedabad, the Assistant Commissioner of Police issued him a notice under Section 179 BNSS to appear and disclose the true details of the case; the High Court refused relief because he had not responded (para 2). A two-Judge Bench referred two questions on summoning lawyers directly and on judicial oversight (para 3). Bar bodies sought guidelines modelled on Jacob Mathew and Vishaka (paras 5, 8-9, 11), while the Attorney General and Solicitor General opposed any guidelines (paras 12-15).

The Section 132 privilege yields only to the client's consent, an illegal purpose, or a crime or fraud observed during the engagement; the privilege is the client's, but the Advocate may invoke it (para 33). Jacob Mathew and Vishaka did not apply, as there was neither a legislative vacuum nor a question of professional negligence (paras 29-31). The privilege extends the client's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) (para 41), and summoning his lawyer imperils the right to legal representation under Articles 14, 21 and 22(1) (para 43). Guidelines, a committee or a Magistrate filter would derogate from the BNSS (paras 44-45). A summons seeking the facts of a crime from the accused's Advocate reflects a failure of investigation, and the High Court erred in refusing to quash it (paras 46, 48). Judicial review under Section 528 BNSS is adequate oversight (paras 51-52). Documents held by an Advocate are not privileged but go before the Court, and digital devices are opened only before the Court with the party and Advocate present (paras 54, 58). Salaried in-house lawyers are not Advocates and cannot claim Section 132 (paras 59, 62, 66).