'Undermines Legal Profession's Autonomy' : Supreme Court Raises Concerns At Police Summoning Advocates Over Client Advice

The Supreme Court today expressed a prima facie view that summoning of legal professionals by prosecuting agencies/police in relation to client information or advice given is untenable and a threat to autonomy of the legal profession.

"Legal profession is an integral component of process of administration of justice. Counsels who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions. Permitting investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel/advocates who advice parties in a given case would seriously undermine autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to independence of administration of justice", the Court observed.

The Court further prima facie found merit in the petitioner-lawyer's submission that advocates are bound by professional duty to maintain confidentiality of client information and advice provided. "Permitting investigating agencies/police to summon advocates who are engaged as counsels in the case or who have advised parties infringe upon rights of advocates, apart from seriously threatening autonomy of legal profession", the petitioner had submitted.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and postulated two questions at this stage for comprehensive consideration:

(i) When an individual has association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?

(ii) Assuming that investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police have a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer, but something more, even then should they be directly permitted to summon or should judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?

"What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties. Since it is a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice, to subject a professional to the beck and call of the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police where he's a counsel in the matter prima facie appears to be untenable", the Court added.

Considering the importance of the matter, the Court called for the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, SCBA President Vikas Singh and SCAORA President Vipin Nair. The matter has been placed before CJI BR Gavai for appropriate directions.

The case pertains to an advocate practicing in Gujarat, who was summoned after he appeared for his client in a bail case arising out of a loan dispute. According to claims, he had no role to play besides being the advocate of the accused and was issued notice under Section 179 of BNSS to ascertain "true details of facts and circumstances of the case". The petitioner initially approached the Gujarat High Court against the notice, but his petition was dismissed.

Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court. Finding issuance of such notice inappropriate, the top Court restrained State of Gujarat from summoning the petitioner until further orders. "There shall be a stay of operation of the notice dated [...] and such other notices that may have been issued to the petitioner", the Court ordered while issuing notice to the respondent-state.

It may be recalled that two Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court were recently summoned by the Enforcement Directorate over legal advice given by them to a client. After protest by the legal community, seeking suo motu cognizance by the top Court due to the threat posed to autonomy of lawyers, the summons were eventually withdrawn. SCAORA, assistance of which was called for today, was one of the Bar bodies which deplored ED's summons and sought Supreme Court's interference in the matter for upholding the Bar's independence and examining the legality/propriety of the summons.

Appearance: Advocates Siddharth H Dave, Prafull Bhardwaj and Maulik Soni; AoR Siddhant Sharma (for petitioner)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Case Title: ASHWINKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9334/2025