Summoning Advocates by Investigating Agencies Prima Facie Untenable; Karnataka HC Stays Summons Citing SC's Observations & S.132 BSA

Karnataka High Court Stays Summons to Advocate, Cites Supreme Court's Concerns on Threat to Justice Administration

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has temporarily stayed a summons issued to an advocate, Manjunath N, directing the investigating agency not to take any coercive steps until the next hearing. The decision, delivered by Justice S. Rajshekar, heavily relies on recent landmark observations by the Supreme Court and an internal circular from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) concerning the summoning of legal professionals.

Case Background

The case, Manjunath N vs State of Karnataka & ANR , was brought before the High Court after an investigating agency summoned the petitioner, an advocate. The court took immediate notice of a related matter pending before the Supreme Court, which addresses the critical question of whether investigating agencies can compel lawyers to testify against or disclose communications related to their clients.

Supreme Court's Stance: Protecting the Legal Profession

Justice Rajshekar's order extensively quoted an interim order from the Supreme Court in SLP No.9334/2025 . The Apex Court had expressed significant concerns, stating that permitting agencies to summon defence counsel would "seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal provision" and pose a "direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice."

The Supreme Court observed:

"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... 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."

Recognizing the gravity of the issue, the Supreme Court has issued notices to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Bar Council of India, and other key legal bodies to assist in formulating a comprehensive framework. It is also considering whether judicial oversight should be required before an advocate can be summoned, even in exceptional cases.

Legal Principles: Advocate-Client Privilege under Section 132 BSA

The High Court's order also highlighted the statutory protection afforded to lawyers under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) . This provision codifies the principle of advocate-client privilege, prohibiting an advocate from disclosing any communication, document, or advice received from a client in a professional capacity without the client's express consent.

The order referenced a technical circular (No.03/2025) issued by the ED, which directs its officers not to issue summons to legal practitioners in violation of Section 132 of the BSA. The circular clarifies that any summons under the exceptions to this rule—such as communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose—can only be issued with the prior approval of the Director of the ED.

Final Order and Implications

In light of the Supreme Court's ongoing examination of the matter and the clear statutory mandate of Section 132 BSA, the Karnataka High Court directed that the summons issued to Manjunath N on September 1, 2025, be "kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing."

The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 8, 2025. This interim order reinforces the sanctity of advocate-client privilege and signals a judicial pushback against the practice of treating legal counsels as ordinary witnesses, thereby safeguarding the foundational principles of a fair and independent justice system.