Police Cannot Directly Summon Advocates/Lawyers for Discharging Professional Duties: Supreme Court Stays Notice Against Lawyer

“Subjecting Lawyers to Police Summons Undermines Justice System and Violates Legal Privilege": In a significant order passed on June 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India stayed a police summon issued to a practicing advocate under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), observing that compelling a lawyer to appear before the police solely in their capacity as legal counsel "prima facie appears to be completely untenable."

The Court warned that "permitting the Investigating Agencies or Police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates advising parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice."

Recognizing the profound constitutional and legal issues involved, the Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India, signaling that this controversy requires examination by a larger bench.

“This Case Raises a Question of Grave Public Importance” — Court Flags Threat to Legal Profession

The Court opened its order with the sharp observation that "this special leave petition raises a question of grave public importance."

The facts of the case unfolded when the petitioner, a practicing advocate since 1997 and President of the Vastral Advocates Association in Gujarat, represented his client, Panchal Princekumar Bhavanishankar, in a criminal case arising out of an FIR registered on 13 February 2025 at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad.

The FIR involved allegations under Sections 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 40, 42(a), 42(d), and 42(e) of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The accused was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. However, soon thereafter, the petitioner-advocate himself was served a notice dated 24 March 2025 under Section 179 of BNSS, summoning him for questioning in connection with the same FIR in which he was merely acting as legal counsel.

“Counsel Cannot Be Summoned Merely for Fulfilling Professional Duties — Client-Lawyer Privilege is a Sacred Protection”

The Court highlighted the petitioner’s argument that "the petitioner was neither an accused nor a witness but was only discharging his role as an Advocate of the accused." The petitioner contended that "communications between an Advocate and a client are privileged under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, corresponding to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be the subject matter of any enquiry under Section 179 or any other provision of BNSS."

Mr. Siddharth Dave, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that "if Investigating Agencies are permitted to summon advocates who are engaged as counsel in the case or who have merely advised parties, it will impinge upon the rights of advocates apart from seriously threatening the autonomy of the legal profession."

The Court agreed with this concern, stating, "The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsel, who are engaged in their legal practice, apart from their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals and also due to statutory provisions like Section 132 of BSA."

“Permitting This Would Seriously Undermine the Autonomy of the Legal Profession” — Supreme Court Sounds Alarm

The Court warned in unambiguous terms that "permitting the Investigating Agencies/Prosecuting Agency/Police to directly summon defence counsel or Advocates, who advise parties in a given case, would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice."

The Bench further observed that "this is a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice. Hence, subjecting the Counsel in a case to the beck and call of the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police prima facie appears to be completely untenable."

“Should There Be Judicial Oversight Before Police Summon an Advocate?": Court Poses Fundamental Questions

The Court formulated two key legal questions that it declared must be comprehensively addressed:

First, “When an individual has the association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?”

Second, “Assuming that the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police has 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 criterion of cases?”

The Court stressed that "what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously and fearlessly discharge their professional duties."

Supreme Court Calls for Views from Top Legal Bodies — Matter Referred to Chief Justice

Recognizing the far-reaching consequences of the issue, the Court directed that notice be issued not only to the State but also to key stakeholders in the Indian legal system — the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, the President and Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

“We feel that this is a case where notice needs to be issued... to assist the Court in addressing this important question,” the Court ordered.

The Bench then directed, “Let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for passing such directions as His Lordship may deem appropriate.”

“Interim Protection Granted — Summon Stayed”

The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the notice dated 24 March 2025 or “such other subsequent notices that may have been issued” against the petitioner-advocate.

It categorically restrained the respondent-State from summoning the petitioner until further orders, providing immediate protection pending a final resolution of the issue.

The Supreme Court’s sharp and categorical observations in this case signal the beginning of what could become a landmark precedent in defining the limits of police power vis-à-vis the legal profession in India.

The outcome of this case will likely have a lasting impact on the protection of client-lawyer confidentiality, the independence of the Bar, and the fundamental right of lawyers to practice their profession without intimidation or interference.

The matter now awaits further directions from the Chief Justice of India, who may constitute a larger bench to decide this critical question at the intersection of constitutional law, criminal procedure, and the ethics of legal practice.

Date of Decision: 25 June 2025