Summoning Defence Counsel Threatens Justice System | Subjecting Lawyers To Police Beck And Call Prima Facie Appears Completely Untenable : Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the practice of summoning defence counsel by investigating agencies raises a substantial constitutional question affecting the administration of justice. The Court directed that until further orders, the respondent-State shall refrain from summoning the petitioner Advocate and stayed the operation of the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025 or any subsequent notices. The matter has been referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions, given the significant legal issues involved.
The matter pertains to a Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court against an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat in a quashing application. The petitioner, a practicing advocate enrolled since 1997 and serving as President of the Vastral Advocates Association in Gujarat, challenged a notice issued under Section 179 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The facts leading to the notice began with a loan agreement dated 24.06.2024 executed between one Parmar Kamleshkumar Amratlal and one Panchal Princekumar Bhavanishankar. On 13.02.2025, an FIR bearing No.11191037250276 of 2025 was registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad under multiple statutory provisions, including Sections 296(b) and 351(3) of the BNSS, Sections 40, 42(a), 42(d), and 42(e) of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Following the FIR, the accused, Panchal Princekumar Bhavanishankar, was arrested on 25.02.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner, acting as legal counsel for the accused, filed a regular bail application, which was granted by the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.
On 24.03.2025, the petitioner Advocate was served with a notice under Section 179 of BNSS by Mr. D.R. Patel, Assistant Commissioner of Police, SC/ST Cell-2, Ahmedabad City. The notice cited the above FIR and required the petitioner to appear for questioning within three days to aid the investigation.
The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court of Gujarat through R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.5349/2025. However, the High Court dismissed the application based on a report dated 11.04.2025 by the issuing officer, which stated that the petitioner had not responded and that his non-cooperation had stalled the investigation. The High Court found no violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights and upheld the issuance of the notice in the capacity of a witness under Section 179 of BNSS.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
The Court recorded the arguments made by the petitioner’s counsel. It noted that “the petitioner was neither an accused nor a witness and was only discharging his role as an Advocate of the accused in the said case.” It was further stated that the FIR was limited to a dispute between the complainant and the accused, and the petitioner had no connection with the matter beyond his role as legal counsel.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that communications between an advocate and a client are privileged under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which corresponds to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to him, such communications cannot be subjected to inquiry under Section 179 or any other provision of the BNSS. It was also submitted that advocates are bound by professional duty to preserve the confidentiality of client communication and legal advice rendered.
He argued that “permitting the Investigating Agencies/Prosecuting Agency/Police to summon Advocates who are engaged as counsel in the case or who have advised parties impinge upon the rights of the Advocates apart from seriously threatening the autonomy of the legal profession.”
The Court recorded, “Prima facie, we find merit in the said submission.” It observed that the legal profession is “an integral component of the process of administration of justice.” Lawyers, it held, possess certain rights and privileges not only under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India but also by virtue of their professional role and specific statutory protections, such as those under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The Bench expressed concern that “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 provision and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice.”
In view of the seriousness of the legal question involved, the Court held that “this is a case where notice need to be issued to the learned Attorney General for India, learned Solicitor General of India, the Chairman, Bar Council of India and for the time being to the President/Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association and to the President/Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association to assist the Court in addressing this important question.”
The Court framed the following issues for further consideration:
(i) When an individual has the association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?
(ii) Assuming that the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police has a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then should they be directly permitted to summon or should judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criterion of cases?
It was stated that “both these issues and such other issues as may arise would have to be addressed on a comprehensive basis because 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.”
The Bench concluded that this is “a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice.” It added that “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.”
The Court directed that, considering the importance of the legal issues involved, “the papers be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for passing such directions as His Lordship may deem appropriate.” It recorded that the questions raised touch upon the “efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously and fearlessly discharge their professional duties.”
In view of this, the Court issued an interim restraint against the respondent-State from acting on the impugned notice. It stated, “As far as the present matter is concerned, till further orders, the respondent-State is restrained from summoning the petitioner and there shall be stay of operation of the notice dated 24.03.2025 or such other subsequent notices that may have been issued to the petitioner.”
The Court further ordered, “Issue notice to the respondents. Let notice also be issued as directed in Para 8 hereinabove.” Paragraph 8 of the judgment had directed notice to be issued to: the learned Attorney General for India, the learned Solicitor General of India, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, the President or Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and the President or Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
Finally, the Court concluded the order by stating, “Let the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth H. Dave, Advocate; Mr. Prafull Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Maulik Soni, Advocate; Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 9334/2025
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
