Surprised That High Court Did Not Quash Police Summons Issued To Advocate Over Case In Which He Appeared : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Case of arbitrary summoning of advocates by in investigating authorities has sternly frowned upon the refusal of the Gujarat High Court to entertain a plea by an advocate who was summoned. The bench observed that being a Constitutional Court, the High Court's refusal to entertain such a plea was an abdication of its inherent powers. The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the decision in the suo motu case. The bench held that investigating agencies cannot arbitrarily summon advocates to get the details of their clients and that such summons can be issued only if the matter falls within the exceptions to Section 132 BSA.The present Suo Motu case was an aftermath of a series of summons issued by investigating authorities to various advocates.The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh subsequently referred the present issue to a larger bench while hearing the case where the Gujarat Police summoned an advocate who represented an accused. The present bench frowned upon the refusal of the Gujarat High Court to entertain the case when the advocate approached it. "We find the summons issued in the instant case to be illegal and against the provisions of Section 132 insofar as the Advocate has been summoned to know the true details of the facts and circumstances of the case in which he appears for the accused. We are surprised that the High Court, being a Constitutional Court, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS refused to interfere with the same," the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed.The bench also termed the conduct of the High Court as an 'abdication of the inherent powers' conferred upon it. The reason to turn down the advocate given by the High Court was also held to be unreasonable. “We find the reasons stated; of the Advocate having not responded to the summons and the investigation being stalled, to dismiss the petition, to be flawed & erroneous. It is also in abdication of the inherent powers conferred on the High Court, which the blatant breach of the rule against non-disclosure projects.”“The breach is not only of the evidentiary rule, which many jurisdictions accept as fundamental to the adversary adjudicatory scheme, but, in the Indian context, project infringement of fundamental rights; guaranteed against self incrimination and effective representation of Counsel.” The Court added. The Court also laid down guidelines regulating the production of advocates' documents and digital devices that may contain client information.Case : In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051Also read : No Summons To Advocates Except Under S.132 BSA Exceptions; Prior Approval Of Superior Officer Mandatory: Supreme Court Issues DirectionsIn-House Counsel Not 'Advocate'; Their Communication With Employer Not Protected Under S.132 BSA : Supreme CourtSupreme Court Issues Directions On Production Of Advocates' Digital Devices For Investigation; Says Clients' Documents Not Covered By S.132 BSAClick here to read the judgment

Surprised That High Court Did Not Quash Police Summons Issued To Advocate Over Case In Which He Appeared : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The Supreme Court observed that the Gujarat High Court's approach was an "abdication of its inherent powers."

Tags