In-house counsel cannot claim privilege on communications with employer: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that in-house counsels cannot claim privilege with respect to communications with his employer as available to advocates.

"Whether, in his employment, an In-house Counsel advises his employer on legal affairs would not bring an In house counsel, a fully salaried employee, within the definition of an Advocate which would also not enable him to claim the privilege with respect to communications with his employer as available under Section 126", a CJI Gavai led bench has held while adding that the counsel could take up other pleas.

Court made these observations while it refrained from framing guidelines regarding procedure to be adopted in summoning a lawyer as it would in effect, be in derogation of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

"The power of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence, as provided under Section 175, even without the order of a Magistrate, cannot be regulated by any guideline issued by us, especially when sufficient guideline is available, under Sections 132 to 134 of the BSA. A police officer issuing summons to an Advocate, under Section 179, would be cautioned by the provisions of Section 132 in not expecting any disclosure of a privileged communication", the supreme court added.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria has further noted that "we are not in a position of absolutely no guideline being available". Court also said it was not persuaded to constitute a committee of legal professionals or enabling the summons to be issued through a Magistrate, which would be in derogation of the provisions of the BNSS.

"We agree that such a measure would be counter-productive insofar as the I.Os attempting to summon the Advocate appearing in a case, at the drop of the hat; if we may use that phrase, by resorting to the procedure of a duly constituted committee of legal experts or the Magistrate, in effect could frustrate the cause of justice and stifle the due administration of rule of law. This would also put in jeopardy the right of a client/accused who is actually conferred with the protection against disclosure. A committee of legal experts or even a Magistrate taking a decision, without the junction of the client/accused, who would eventually be prejudiced if a decision is taken in favour of disclosure, would be wholly inappropriate and would run counter to the basic tenets of full and effective legal representation", the bench further observed.

On Friday, Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the issue of summons being issued to advocates by investigating agencies, in cases relating to their clients. It has held that investigating agencies shall not issue summons to lawyers appearing for accused, and if so, it shall specify the exception under which it has issued the said summons. Digital devices of the advocates concerned shall be produced before a jurisdictional court only, the court has further said.

A CJI Gavai led bench had reserved verdict in the case on August 12 after hearing all parties concerned before it, including the Attorney General and Solicitor General. It had registered a suo motu case over summons being issued to advocates, in cases relating to their clients, by investigating agencies on July 14.

On June 25th, a bench of Justices KV Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar Singh which was hearing a plea by a lawyer who was summoned by police in Gujarat in relation to a case of his client had placed the issue before the CJI for taking cognizance. While granting interim relief to the lawyer who was summoned by the police in Gujarat, the bench had ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for appropriate directions.

Case Title: IN RE : SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES vs.

Judgment Date: October 31, 2025

Bench: CJI Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria