The Bombay High Court has delivered a stern rebuke to investigating agencies for summoning advocates, underscoring that the advocate–client privilege is sacrosanct in law and is non-negotiable. A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil quashed the illegal summons issued to the advocate and imposed costs on Assistant Police Inspector Anil Kamble, who was present in court. The Court also directed that “appropriate action” be taken against the former Investigating Officer, Police Sub-Inspector Pradip Bhitade.

Facts:

The matter was placed before the Bench for directions at the request of the Petitioner, Narshi Mulji Shah, a 93-year-old businessman. The Petitioner’s counsel had moved a praecipe and submitted on record certain summons issued by the Investigating Officers to the Petitioner’s advocate in connection with the FIR in question. In view of the Petitioner’s advanced age, the Bench granted the praecipe, leading to the matter being listed before it on this date.

Mr. Gaikwad, counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner’s earlier advocate has been impleaded as an accused in the FIR. He stated that the Investigating Officer(IO) has been summoning Ms. Hemakshi B. Gandhi, the Petitioner’s current advocate in C.R. No. 196 of 2024, by issuing notices under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

He placed on record copies of the notices issued on 02/07/2024, 24/07/2024, 07/08/2024, 26/08/2024, 22/04/2025, 14/05/2025, and 15/10/2025. According to him, these notices were sent for the stated purpose of conducting the investigation in the matter, despite the IO being fully aware that the addressee is the Petitioner’s advocate.

He further submitted that because of this high-handed conduct by the IO, no advocate is willing to accept the Petitioner’s brief, therefore strict action be taken against the IO’s.

After hearing Kartik Garg, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 (Original Complainant), and V.G. Konde Deshmukh, Addl. P.P. appearing for Respondent No. 1-State, the court strongly condemned the conduct of the IO stating,

“We are astonished to see the manner, in which the Investigating Officer Mr. Anil Kamble, is going on summoning the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, by sending notice after notice. Mr. Anil Kamble, Assistant Police Inspector, who was present in Court, when confronted, was unable to tell us/justify the purpose of issuing the summonses to the Petitioner’s Advocate. He infact, tendered his un-conditional apology for issuing the summonses’’.

The bench extensively relied upon the recent Supreme Court judgment in Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320, which categorically laid down the law on this issue.

The Supreme Court had held that, "The investigating agency/prosecuting agency/the police cannot directly summon a lawyer appearing in a case to elicit the details of the case, unless there is something, the I.O has knowledge of, which falls under the exceptions, in which case it has to be specifically mentioned in the summons, which the lawyer summoned can challenge under Section 528 of the BNSS".

Applying the Supreme Court’s principles to the instant case, Justice Dere and Justice Patil categorically stated that, “The provisions of said Section 132 to 134 of the BSA, have to be squarely adhered to. If this privilege does not exist, everyone would be deprived of professional assistance. No person would venture to consult any Advocate and this would seriously derail the administration of justice. We find that the act of summoning the Advocate, is a very serious act, which virtually is a blatant illegal act”.

The bench also emphasised that investigating officers shall not issue summons to an advocate representing the accused to obtain details of the case, unless the situation falls within one of the exceptions under Section 132.

Further, if such a summons is issued, it must explicitly specify the facts on which the exception is relied upon and it must have the consent of a superior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

The court declared that, "the act of the Investigating Officers, seriously impeded the administration of justice" and constituted "serious violation of the provisions of Section 132 of 134 of the BSA".

In its final order, the court imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 for each illegal notice issued by Assistant Police Inspector Mr. Anil Kamble, to be deposited in the Account of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund, within two weeks.

The court also directed the Senior Police Inspector of Matunga Police Station, to initiate appropriate departmental action against Mr. Anil Kamble, after issuing him a notice as per procedure.

Additionally, the court noted that the letters issued by the erstwhile investigating officer, Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Pradip Bhitade, on earlier dates were "equally bad in law" and directed that appropriate action be taken against him as well. The court further directed that a copy of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Re: Summoning Advocates matter be forwarded to all Superintendents of Police and Commissioners of Police, in the State of Maharashtra, for information.

Appearance:

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv.Pravin Gaikwad a/w Adv. Gahineenath Karanjule

Advocate for Respondent no.1 (State): Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, Addl. P.P.

Advocate for Respondent no.2:Adv. Kartik Garg

Case Details: Narshi Mulji Shah v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3774 of 2024),