NEW DELHI: Quoting a US judgment that said harassing lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of govt, Supreme Court on Friday said no investigating agency could issue summons to an advocate for questioning merely because they gave legal opinion, advice or represented a person accused of committing a serious crime or huge financial irregularity.
A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria stressed an advocate could not be coerced into revealing any information with respect to the client they represented or the cause they were engaged to prosecute or defend. “Such privilege extends to legal opinions given by an advocate to individuals, corporates, firms and associations,” it said.
SC had taken suo motu cognizance of the issuance of summons to advocates by probe agencies and police. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandran, however, said immunity from disclosing privileged advocate-client communication was not available to in-house counsel who were in regular employment of a corporate entity with full salaries, as they were not included within the definition of advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The court also clarified that immunity from summons did not apply to advocates who had assisted or conspired with the client in the commission of a crime.
The bench said when summons in such instances was issued to an advocate, the investigating officer must take the consent of a superior officer not below the rank of SP. All such summonses can be challenged in courts, SC said.
Referring to Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam provisions, the bench said client-lawyer communication had been treated as sacrosanct and no authority could seek details. It, however, refrained from framing guidelines on issuance of summons, saying there was no legal vacuum that required judicial intervention.
“The role of lawyers in society and the discharge of their duties... in establishing rights or defending against infringements cannot at all be discounted,” SC said, th-ough conceding there were black sheep “who tread the uneven, muddy lanes of deceit, in purported protection of interest of the client”.
It said, “The provision providing protection to the privileged communications between the lawyer and the client is not to protect those deviants but to ensure that the vast majority, who are day in and day out involved in the task of administration of justice, are not victimised or bullied into making disclosures of their communications with their clients, merely for reason of having represented a client of questionable conduct...”
SC provided for a trial court-monitored mechanism for production of electronic devices of an advocate in an instance where they were complicit in a crime but barred disclosure of any communication between that advocate and their other clients unrelated to the crime.
A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria stressed an advocate could not be coerced into revealing any information with respect to the client they represented or the cause they were engaged to prosecute or defend. “Such privilege extends to legal opinions given by an advocate to individuals, corporates, firms and associations,” it said.
SC had taken suo motu cognizance of the issuance of summons to advocates by probe agencies and police. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandran, however, said immunity from disclosing privileged advocate-client communication was not available to in-house counsel who were in regular employment of a corporate entity with full salaries, as they were not included within the definition of advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The court also clarified that immunity from summons did not apply to advocates who had assisted or conspired with the client in the commission of a crime.
The bench said when summons in such instances was issued to an advocate, the investigating officer must take the consent of a superior officer not below the rank of SP. All such summonses can be challenged in courts, SC said.
Referring to Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam provisions, the bench said client-lawyer communication had been treated as sacrosanct and no authority could seek details. It, however, refrained from framing guidelines on issuance of summons, saying there was no legal vacuum that required judicial intervention.
“The role of lawyers in society and the discharge of their duties... in establishing rights or defending against infringements cannot at all be discounted,” SC said, th-ough conceding there were black sheep “who tread the uneven, muddy lanes of deceit, in purported protection of interest of the client”.
It said, “The provision providing protection to the privileged communications between the lawyer and the client is not to protect those deviants but to ensure that the vast majority, who are day in and day out involved in the task of administration of justice, are not victimised or bullied into making disclosures of their communications with their clients, merely for reason of having represented a client of questionable conduct...”
SC provided for a trial court-monitored mechanism for production of electronic devices of an advocate in an instance where they were complicit in a crime but barred disclosure of any communication between that advocate and their other clients unrelated to the crime.
You may also like
"No doubt a strong NDA govt will be formed in Bihar this time": Chirag Paswan exudes confidence ahead of polls
Experts share 5 travel hacks for saving on Christmas train travel this year
Gmail: Schedule emails in Gmail like this, work will be done at the right time..
Fake Game Links Draining Bank Accounts: Government Issues Cyber Fraud Warning for Parents
Travel: These 5 great honeymoon destinations are located within 300 kilometers of Bihar, including one abroad...
