The Hindu: Published on 13th November 2025.
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India, on October 31, 2025, reaffirmed the constitutional and ethical sanctity of the lawyer–client relationship by ruling that a lawyer cannot be summoned or forced to disclose what a client has communicated, except in specific exceptional situations.
The ruling came during suo motu proceedings initiated after an Advocate in Ahmedabad was summoned by the police under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to reveal details of a criminal case involving his client.
Background
Confidentiality between a lawyer and client has been a core ethical and legal principle in justice systems worldwide.
This confidentiality is protected under Sections 128–134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023) — India’s new evidence law.
Earlier, similar protection existed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 132 of BSA particularly bars advocates from disclosing professional communications, maintaining trust and fairness in legal proceedings.
What are Privileged Communications?
Privileged communications are confidential exchanges within relationships legally protected from disclosure.
These include:
Marital communications (Section 128)
Official State records (Section 129)
Advocate–client communications (Section 132)
The aim is to promote honesty, protect privacy, and ensure justice.
What did the Supreme Court State?
The SC bench comprising CJI B. R. Gavai, and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria declared that:
A lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose client communications.
The State or Police cannot summon a lawyer for information unless the case falls within three exceptions under Section 132 of BSA:
- The client gives consent.
- The communication is made for an illegal purpose.
- The lawyer witnesses a crime being committed during employment.
- Thus, professional confidentiality is protected unless it facilitates illegality.
Constitutional Link:
The Supreme Court connected Section 132 (BSA) with Article 20(3) of the Constitution — the protection against self-incrimination.
If a citizen cannot be forced to confess, the State cannot compel their lawyer to reveal confidential communications indirectly.
The judgment thereby “constitutionalises” professional privilege, turning it into a citizen’s right, not a lawyer’s luxury.
Role of the Lawyer:
The verdict highlights that a lawyer is not a private agent, but a “constitutional actor”, serving justice and upholding the rule of law.
The privilege is not a perk for advocates but a shield for citizens.
Summoning lawyers as witnesses would destroy the fairness of trial, turning them from defenders to informants.
The judgment safeguards the accused’s right to fair defence (Article 21) and equality before law (Article 14).
Why Safeguarding This Privilege Matters:
It ensures trust between client and counsel — crucial for honest disclosure.
Protects vulnerable individuals, such as:
Women reporting sexual violence
Accident victims facing insurance disputes
Families of custodial death victims
Prevents state overreach and maintains balance between investigative power and individual liberty.
Reinforces Article 21 (Right to Fair Trial) and Article 22(1) (Right to Legal Representation).
Broader Implications:
Strengthens Rule of Law: Reinforces faith in an independent legal system.
Checks Executive Power: Reminds police and agencies that investigative authority has constitutional limits.
Protects Human Rights: Upholds privacy and equality as constitutional guarantees.
Clarifies BNSS Powers: Police powers under Section 179 of BNSS cannot override client–counsel confidentiality.
Judicial Precedents Quoted:
M.H. Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) – Right to legal aid is part of right to life.
Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1980) – Liberty without legal counsel is meaningless.
These precedents affirm that effective legal representation is essential for true justice.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court’s verdict is a landmark reaffirmation of the ethical, legal, and constitutional foundation of the legal profession.
- By protecting the advocate–client privilege, the Court ensures that justice remains free from coercion, fear, and surveillance.
- The judgment serves as a reminder to the executive that the Constitution, not convenience, defines the limits of power.
