Investigative agencies summoning lawyers violates the lawyer-client privilege
Written by Shailee Basu
The Supreme Court's initiation of suo motu proceedings concerning investigating agencies directly summoning lawyers marks a critical juncture in the ongoing tension between investigative autonomy and the independence of the legal profession. This development, prompted by the Gujarat Police summoning a lawyer representing a client, follows another controversial incident: The Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s summons issued to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, relating to their advisory services on Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) of Care Health Insurance.
The SC's cognisance of these incidents underscores a growing concern. Unchecked investigative authority risks compromising judicial fairness and undermining fundamental principles of criminal justice.
Lawyer-Client privilege: A constitutional safeguard
This issue raises many questions about lawyer-client privilege and the independence of legal counsel that underpin fair trial rights and are embedded within Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The SC, recognising the gravity of the issue, observed that allowing agencies to directly summon defence counsel or legal advisors merely for rendering professional services would 'seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession' and pose a threat to 'the independence of the administration of justice.'
Lawyer-client privilege is neither novel nor peculiar to Indian jurisprudence. It is a universally accepted safeguard embedded in common law traditions. In India, it is statutorily codified in Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the successor to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision unequivocally protects confidential communications between lawyers and clients from compelled disclosure without the client's consent.
In State of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (1961), the SC affirmed the sanctity of this privilege, holding that confidentiality between a lawyer and client is essential to effective legal representation and the fair administration of justice. Breaching this confidentiality undermines not only professional integrity but also erodes public confidence in the impartiality of the legal system.
Investigative powers and statutory limits
Investigating agencies, empowered under various statutes, do possess broad discretionary powers. However, these powers must be exercised within clearly defined legal and constitutional limits. The ED's summons, withdrawn after strong objections from Bar associations across the country, highlighted the dangers of unconstrained investigative discretion. The agency subsequently issued a circular advising its officers not to issue summons in violation of Section 132 of the BSA, implicitly acknowledging the earlier overreach.
It is essential to distinguish between legitimate legal representation and active complicity in criminal conduct. To collapse this distinction would impact the willingness of lawyers to represent clients in politically sensitive and high-stakes matters, thereby impairing access to justice.
The imperative for judicial oversight
In this context, the SC's intervention is both necessary and timely. Investigations that seek to implicate lawyers beyond their professional roles must be subjected to judicial oversight. Such oversight, ideally at the level of a magistrate or special judge, must require a detailed, reasoned order that explains why legal privilege does not apply, as and when a lawyer is summoned. Additionally, notifying the relevant Bar Council or association would provide an institutional safeguard, consistent with international best practices.
Global jurisprudence strongly supports such oversight. In the United Kingdom, investigative actions involving lawyers, such as searches and seizures, require prior judicial authorisation under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights in Niemietz vs Germany (1992) held that law offices are entitled to heightened protection, adding that unrestricted searches threaten both legal professional privilege and the integrity of the justice system.
Rule of law and fair trial
The risk of investigative excess is especially acute in politically charged or complex corporate matters. The recent episodes involving Senior Advocates Datar and Venugopal illustrate how easily legal advice can be misconstrued as complicity, thereby turning investigative mechanisms into tools for intimidation or retribution. When the state's investigative powers operate without clearly articulated limits, they risk becoming instruments of coercion rather than instruments of justice.
Lawyers, like all citizens, are not above the law. But accountability must be balanced by institutional safeguards that protect the lawyer's role as a facilitator of justice. The SC's intervention is not simply about defending a professional class; it is about reaffirming the constitutional architecture of legal representation: Rule of law and a fair trial.
The writer is a lawyer and Research Fellow with the Crime & Punishment team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
US Supreme Court upholds key preventive care provision in Obamacare
The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare read more The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Kancha Gachibowli aftermath: State government reconstitutes expert committee to identify forest lands
In a significant development after the Supreme Court's directions in the suo motu case pertaining to Kancha Gachibowli forest clearance, the State government issued orders on Friday, reconstituting the expert committee to identify the forested lands in the State. With fewer persons than the previous one, the new 7-member committee is chaired by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in charge of IT & Wildlife Protection, and comprises a person nominated by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and a representative from the National Remote Sensing Agency as members, retired Deputy Conservator of Forests and Officer on Special Duty as expert member, Deputy Conservator of Forests S. Madhava Rao as expert member and member-convenor, Chief Conservator/Conservator of Forests, Rajanna Sircilla Circle and District Forest Officer, Khammam, as members/field forest officers. The earlier committee had a wider membership from senior bureaucrats such as the CCLA, GHMC Commissioner, HMDA Metropolitan Commissioner, Commissioner Panchayat Raj, Director, Town & Country Planning, Commissioner of Industries, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner/Director, Tribal Welfare, and Commissioner Horticulture as members and the PCCF and Head of Forest Force as member-convenor. The membership of the committee earned a serious view from the Apex Court which questioned the representation of so many unrelated departments in the committee to identify forests. The Central Empowered Committee which had submitted its report on the Kancha Gachibowli issue, also recommended reconstitution of the panel with representation of relevant departments. State-level expert committee constitution to identify forest lands was mandated by the Supreme Court, in the landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad judgement in 1996 which expanded the definition of forest to its dictionary meaning, from the narrow interpretation based on the legal boundaries or ownership. Several State governments have not constituted expert committees, nor carried out the exercise to identify the deemed forests. With the Central government removing unclassified forests from the legal definition of forests by way of a recent amendment to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, a public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court, invoking the Godavarman Thirumulpad judgement. The top court directed the State governments and union territories to forward records of the reports of their expert committees, containing the data of the deemed forests to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, spurring all the States to constitute expert committees now. The State government issued its first order constituting the previous expert committee on March 15 this year, with one month's time to come up with a report. The latest order does not specify any time limit for the report.
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
Kolkata law college gangrape survivor had ‘bite marks, nail scratches': Medical proof backs female student's complaint
Kolkata law college gangrape case: A senior official of the Kolkata Police on Friday said that the medical examination corroborated a law college student's allegation that she was gangraped, new agency PTI reported. "The evidence corroborated what the victim alleged in her complaint lodged with the Kasba Police Station. There is evidence of forceful penetration, bite marks and nail scratches on her body," the officer told PTI. Chief Police Prosecutor Sourin Ghosal said that the prime accused, a former student of the college and a practicing criminal lawyer, raped the first year law student while the other two stood guard outside the room. "According to a Supreme Court judgement, all persons in a group involved in cases of gangrape must be held liable, even if all of them did not commit the act of rape. In this case, two other persons helped in the rape. So this is a case of gang rape, and they are also accused in the case," Ghosal told PTI. A female student was allegedly gangraped inside a law college in Kolkata's Kasba on June 25. The police have arrested all three accused. According to an ANI report, the three accused, named as Monojit Mishra (31), Zaib Ahmed (19), and Pramit Mukhopadhyay (20), were former students or staff members of the same law college. All of them have been sent to a four days police custody till July 1. The alleged sexual assault took place between 7:30 pm and 10:50 pm on Wednesday within the law college premises. According to the official, one of the accused allegedly committed sexual assault, while the others were involved in the crime. The victim's family filed a police complaint against the accused, and the police have taken swift action in the matter. Two of the accused, Monojit Mishra and Zaib Ahmed, were arrested on Thursday, near Siddhartha Shankar Roy Sishu Udyan, close to Talbagan Crossing in Kolkata. Pramit Mukhopadhyay was arrested later the same night at his residence. The police have seized the mobile phones of all three accused. The Trinamool Congress on Friday highlighted the need for implementing the Aparajita Anti-Rape Bill after all three accused were arrested in the Kolkata law college gangrape case. Condemning the incident, the TMC said that the 'tragedy once again underscores the urgent need for the implementation of the Aparajita Anti-Rape Bill to establish a strong deterrent against sexual offences, emphasising the necessity for speedy investigations, swift trials, and stringent punishments.' On September 3, 2024, the West Bengal Assembly had unanimously passed the Aparajita anti-rape bill, that seeks capital punishment for rapists in the state. The anti-rape bill was moved in the wake of widespread and continuing protests that had rocked West Bengal in the aftermath of a Kolkata doctor's rape and murder. The post-graduate trainee doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital was found dead in a seminar hall of the institute on August 9. (With inputs from agencies)
