Can In-house Lawyers Be Protected From Unwarranted Summons? Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court today agreed to consider if in-house counsels can claim privilege with respect to communications with his employer as available to advocates.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi raised the issue before a CJI Surya Kant led bench as it took up the suo motu case concerning summons being issued to advocates by investigating agencies, in cases relating to their clients.

Rohatgi further told the bench that the income tax authorities were sending summons to in-house employees of companies. "Let the Attorney general come...we can have it on another day...the income tax authorities are not working in the way..", the bench was told.

Court was further informed that a review has been filed by the General Counsel's Association of India against the Supreme Court's refusal to grant the privilege to in-house counsels

"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 had held last year while adding that the counsel could take up other pleas.

Court had 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 BNSS. 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 had 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.

Supreme Court had delivered its verdict on the issue of summons being issued to advocates by investigating agencies, in cases relating to their clients. It had 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.

In July 2025 the supreme court 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.

The assistance of the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman, President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the President of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) had also been sought by the Supreme Court on the issue. 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.

Hearing Date: September 24, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana