IN A JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON FRIDAY the Supreme Court has provided certain safeguards and clarifications regarding the summoning of lawyers representing the accused to ascertain the details of the case. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria issued a slew of directions to this effect.
The Bench stated that summons could be issued to a lawyer only where there is (i) waiver/consent by the client; (ii) furthering of an illegal purpose; or (iii) observation of a crime or fraud committed in the course of his engagement, whether it be noticed at the instance of the client or otherwise.
These exceptions are codified in the proviso to Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (‘BSA’), 2023.
The Bench also held that ‘in-house’ counsel would not be entitled to the privilege under Section 132 since they are not advocates practising in courts. But they would be entitled to the protection under Section 134 of the BSA insofar as any communication made to the legal adviser of his employer; this, however, cannot be claimed for communications between the employer and the in-house counsel.
The safeguard, which the Bench has introduced, is that a summons must have the consent of a superior officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police (‘SP’), who would record his satisfaction as to the exception in writing before the summons is issued.
