Investigating Agencies’ authority to summon Lawyers under scrutiny, as Supreme Court refers issue to Chief Justice of India for detailed consideration

In a Special Leave Petition raising an issue of significant public importance—namely, whether and under what circumstances Investigating Agencies can summon an advocate representing a party in an ongoing matter—the Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh observed that the matter required thorough consideration. The Court noted that the issue directly impacts the functioning of the justice system and the ability of lawyers to perform their professional duties freely and fearlessly. Acknowledging the gravity of the matter, the Bench ordered that the case file be submitted to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action. Meanwhile, the Court restrained the State from summoning the petitioner and stayed the notice dated 24-03-2025, along with any subsequent ones in the same matter. Investigating Agencies’ authority to summon Lawyers under scrutiny, as Supreme Court refers issue to Chief Justice of India for detailed consideration.

The petitioner, an Advocate enrolled since 1997 and President of the Vastral Advocates Association, Gujarat, had appeared for an accused in a case involving a loan dispute. An FIR was registered on 13-02-2025 under Sections 296(b) and 351(3) of the BNS, along with provisions of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Acting exclusively in his role as legal counsel, the petitioner had facilitated the grant of bail for the accused. However, on 24-03-2025, he received a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS, directing him to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He contested this notice before the High Court, which rejected his plea, reasoning that the summons was issued to him as a witness and that the authorities were operating within their lawful powers. The petitioner contended that he had no personal involvement in the FIR and was acting solely in his official role as legal counsel. He claimed that his communications with the client were protected under Section 132 of the BSA and that being summoned infringed upon the confidentiality and independence inherent in the legal profession.

The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner’s arguments were prima facie valid, stating that lawyers are protected under Article 19(1)(g) and statutory privileges. It held that summoning legal counsel directly undermines the legal profession’s independence and the justice delivery system. The Court issued notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India, and top Bar associations for assistance. It framed key questions regarding the limits of summoning advocates and whether judicial oversight is necessary in such cases. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for further directions.

Case details: [Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9334/2025, decided on 25-06-2025]