Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Suo-Moto Case On Investigation Agencies Summoning Advocates
The issue has gained prominence following instances where lawyers have reportedly been summoned by investigating agencies over legal advice given to clients, particularly in sensitive matters.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
Today, the Supreme Court reserved orders in a suo-moto case regarding investigation agencies issuing summons to advocates who give legal advice or represent parties during the investigation of cases.
The issue has gained prominence following instances where lawyers have reportedly been summoned by central investigating agencies over legal advice given to clients, particularly in sensitive matters.
The Bench of Justice Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter and reserved order in the case.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, submitted, "Lawyers need to be protected. Provisions are already there...nothing further needs to be done...for professional opinion given he (Advocate) should not be called by investigation agencies."
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab (2005) and suggested that a Magistrate can be appointed to oversee the matters in which Advocates are to be summoned.
However, Attorney General of India, R. Venkatramani submitted that a Magisterial oversight would be a "long rope." AG also suggests that in-house counsel, General counsel etc, will also get the same privileges as a lawyer.
Later, Mehta submitted that "The Court is the custodian of the entire legal profession."
Upon which, the CJI responded, "We are custodian of the entire nation."
After extensive submissions by the Advocates, the Bench reserved order with regard to the Suo-moto petition.
Background
The issue has gained prominence following instances where lawyers have reportedly been summoned by investigating agencies over legal advice given to clients, particularly in sensitive matters. In a previous hearing on June 26, 2025, a Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh restrained Gujarat Police from summoning an advocate in connection with a case involving his client, and referred the broader issue to the Chief Justice of India.
Earlier, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the implications such actions may have on the independence of the legal profession.
The Court had observed, "What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously and fearlessly discharge their professional duties… Subjecting the counsel in a case to the beck and call of the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police prima facie appears to be completely untenable."
It also stated, "Permitting the Investigating Agencies/Prosecuting Agency/Police to directly summon defence counsel or Advocates, who advise parties in a given case, would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice."
The Bench noted that the issue raises serious constitutional questions concerning the legal profession’s role in the administration of justice and the protections available to advocates under Article 19(1)(g) and Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Cause Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation Of Cases And Related Issues (SMW(Crl) No. 2/2025PIL-W)
