In a significant move to protect the independence of lawyers and the sanctity of attorney-client privilege, the Supreme Court has ruled that investigative agencies cannot summon lawyers to inquire about the legal advice they provide to their clients. This can only happen if there are compelling reasons and the summons has been sanctioned by a senior supervisory authority.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, emphasized that while lawyers are not exempt from investigations, a clear distinction must be drawn between the professional legal counsel they offer, which is protected, and any personal involvement a lawyer might have in criminal activities.
The Court clarified that these directives are specifically intended to uphold the integrity of the legal profession, recognizing its crucial role in the administration of justice.
Justice Chandran elaborated that investigating bodies must not demand client-related details from lawyers unless explicitly permitted by Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). This section specifically shields confidential legal communications, barring their disclosure without the client’s explicit consent.
The protection extends to all communications, documents, and advice exchanged during professional services. However, it’s important to note that this privilege does not cover communications made to facilitate illegal activities or information observed by a lawyer that indicates criminal conduct or fraud.
The Supreme Court further directed that any summons issued to a lawyer must clearly outline the specific facts and evidence the agency relies upon. This is to prevent the issuance of vague, open-ended notices that could compel lawyers to reveal client instructions, documents, or legal strategies.
For digital devices belonging to lawyers, such as laptops or phones, the Court mandated a specific protocol under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Any seized device must first be presented to the jurisdictional court. The court will then notify the lawyer and client, and any access to the device, including data extraction or decryption, must occur in the presence of both the advocate and the client, with the option for their technical experts to be present.
The bench stressed that this procedure is essential to prevent the compromise of privileged legal communications. It was also made clear that these protections do not shield lawyers who are personally involved in criminal offenses, and no criminal activity will be protected by this ruling.
This judgment stems from a series of incidents where enforcement agencies summoned lawyers for their advisory roles, sparking protests from the legal fraternity. The Court’s decision aims to establish a consistent, nationwide standard for all investigative bodies, ensuring the legal profession’s vital role is respected and protected.