Supreme Court While Referring Issue Of Agencies Summoning Lawyers To CJI
The Supreme Court restrained the Gujarat Police from summoning an Advocate for questioning in a criminal case involving his client, and flagged that compelling lawyers to appear before the police undermines the autonomy of the legal profession. The Court formulated two legal questions on the permissibility of such summons and referred the issue to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate listing and consideration.
A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “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… 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 added, “Permitting the Investigating Agencies/Prosecuting Agency/Police to directly summon defence counsel or Advocates, who advice 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.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth H. Dave appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, a practising Advocate, was issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC by the Gujarat Police in relation to an FIR involving a client he represented. The FIR invoked offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 354, 354(A)(2), and 114 of the IPC.
The Petitioner contended that he was being summoned solely on account of his professional engagement as counsel in the matter and not for any role as an accused. He approached the Supreme Court seeking protection from coercive steps that, he argued, undermined the independence of his professional role.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court took serious note of the legal and constitutional ramifications of the notice issued to the Petitioner, who was engaged as a lawyer in the criminal case in question. The Bench observed that the matter raises broader concerns touching the autonomy of the legal profession and the very framework of the administration of justice.
Taking note of the constitutional position of practising lawyers, the Bench observed, “The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsel, who are engaged in their legal practice apart from their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals and also due to statutory provisions like Section 132 of BSA.”
Taking cognizance of the impropriety of allowing police to directly summon lawyers engaged in a professional capacity, the Bench warned, “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.”
The Court noted that any such investigative action, when taken without judicial oversight, may interfere with the core functioning of the legal profession. “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 Court added
The Bench stated that subjecting lawyers to investigative pressure in such a manner was completely untenable and further noted that if an exceptional situation arises where the role of a lawyer may go beyond professional representation, such actions must be tested through judicial oversight and not by unilateral police initiative.
In view of the constitutional and systemic significance of the issue, the Court framed two legal questions for adjudication:
“(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?”
Recognising the seriousness of the matter, the Court directed, “Till further orders, the respondent-State is restrained from summoning the petitioner and there shall be stay of operation of the notice…”
The Court issued notice to the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, and the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to assist the Court.
The matter was ordered to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate listing and consideration by an appropriate Bench.
Cause Title: Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9334/2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth H. Dave; AOR Siddhant Sharma; Advocates Prafull Bhardwaj, Maulik Soni
