Overview
- Delivering a suo motu judgment, a bench of CJI B. R. Gavai with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria set aside ED summons to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.
- Investigators may not seek client details from an advocate unless an exception under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applies, with written approval by a superior officer not below Superintendent of Police and the summons specifying the relied-on facts.
- Any such summons is open to judicial review at the instance of the lawyer or client under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, with the Court declining to mandate pre-summons magisterial clearance.
- If digital devices of lawyers are sought, they must be produced to the jurisdictional court, which will issue notice to the lawyer and client; access occurs only in their presence with technical experts of their choice and safeguards to protect other clients’ confidentiality.
- The Court affirmed that privilege does not cover communications furthering illegality or evidence of crime or fraud, clarified that in-house counsel are outside Section 132 protection, and noted that production of client documents held by advocates is not privileged but must be routed through the court.