Supreme Court says no to guidelines on summoning of lawyers as it 'would derogate BNSS provisions'

The Supreme Court of India has 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 has 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.

The court today 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.

In relation to the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal office conducting a money laundering investigation in which it has been alleged that shares of M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) were issued at a much lower price in the form of ESOPs on 1st May, 2022, summons were issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal. As a strong reaction to the ED's summons issued to Venugopal over a legal opinion rendered in the ESOP matter the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) wrote to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai, urging urgent suo motu cognisance of the matter.

The ED then clarified that said summons issued to Venugopal have been withdrawn and same has been communicated to him. In the said communication, it has also been stated that if any documents will be required from Venugopal in his capacity as an Independent Director of CHIL, the same will be requested from him to be submitted by email.

SCAORA recently also strongly condemned the ED's move to summon Senior Advocate Arvind Datar in connection with a legal opinion rendered by him in his professional capacity, alleging it constitutes a “disturbing trend of investigative overreach” and an attack on the independence of the legal profession. The bar body described the ED’s action as “unwarranted” and a “misuse of authority”, reflecting a growing tendency to undermine advocates who perform their duties fearlessly and impartially.

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