Supreme Court Sets Precedents on Service of Notice, Advocate Summons, and NI Act in Recent Rulings

New Delhi – In a series of significant pronouncements, the Supreme Court of India has delivered crucial judgments impacting procedural law, the protection of legal professionals, and the intricate landscape of cheque dishonour litigation. The rulings reinforce the judiciary's stance on formal processes, safeguard advocate-client privilege against investigative overreach, and provide much-needed clarity on several contentious issues under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. These decisions are set to have a profound impact on legal practice, judicial administration, and the conduct of criminal investigations across the country.

---

WhatsApp Deemed Unacceptable for Service of Notice

In a firm declaration favouring traditional legal procedures, the Supreme Court has orally remarked that serving judicial notices via social media platforms like WhatsApp is not permissible. This stance emerged during the hearing of an anticipatory bail matter, where the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the notice had been served to the complainant-victim on WhatsApp due to her being unreachable by other means.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was unequivocal in its response. Justice Kumar orally remarked, "No, no. No WhatsApp or Twitter. Go and serve."

The case, MANOJ KUMAR MOHANTY v STATE OF ODISHA AND ANR , involves a petitioner accused of rape under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The counsel explained the difficulty in effecting service, stating, "She is not responding to our WhatsApp messages. We requested the IO also. IO told us she has told him unless and until you are directed by the hon'ble Supreme Court, we will not accept your service."

Rather than legitimizing the informal digital communication, the Court directed the jurisdictional police to ensure the victim is served within two weeks, reaffirming that the formal chain of service must be maintained. The interim protection from coercive action granted to the petitioner was allowed to continue. This decision underscores the judiciary's caution in adopting informal technologies for critical procedural requirements, prioritizing verifiability and official channels over convenience. It serves as a clear directive to legal practitioners to adhere strictly to prescribed modes of service, even in challenging circumstances.

Court Shields Advocate-Client Privilege from Investigative Overreach

In another landmark decision, the Supreme Court has laid down stringent guidelines to prevent the arbitrary summoning of advocates by investigating agencies seeking details about their clients. The ruling came in a suo motu case, In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues , which was initiated following a series of such summons.

The Court held that investigating agencies cannot summon advocates to extract information about their clients, except in specific circumstances that fall within the exceptions to lawyer-client privilege, as outlined under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Even in such exceptional cases, prior approval from a superior police officer (not below the rank of DSP) is now mandatory.

The bench strongly criticized the Gujarat High Court for its refusal to entertain a plea from an advocate who had been summoned by the police. Describing the High Court as a "Constitutional Court," the Supreme Court termed its refusal to intervene as an "abdication of the inherent powers" conferred upon it under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed, “We are surprised that the High Court, being a Constitutional Court, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS refused to interfere with the same.” The bench found the High Court's reasons for dismissing the advocate's petition—that he had not responded to the summons, thereby stalling the investigation—to be "flawed & erroneous."

This judgment fortifies the bedrock principle of advocate-client privilege, which the Court noted is not merely an evidentiary rule but is linked to the fundamental rights against self-incrimination and to effective legal representation.

Clarifying the Complexities of Cheque Dishonour Litigation

The Supreme Court also delivered a series of judgments clarifying several long-standing issues under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), providing significant guidance to magistrates and practitioners handling cheque dishonour cases.

Key Rulings on NI Act:

• Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000: In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar , the Court decisively ruled that a cheque dishonour complaint is maintainable even if it relates to a cash debt exceeding ₹20,000. It clarified that a violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which restricts such cash transactions, only attracts a penalty under tax law and does not render the underlying debt legally unenforceable for the purposes of a Section 138 proceeding.

• Demand Notice Must Be Precise: In Kaveri Plastics v Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul , the bench reiterated that for a complaint to be maintainable, the amount specified in the statutory demand notice must exactly match the amount on the dishonoured cheque. A notice that demands a different amount, or fails to specify the cheque amount, is legally invalid.

• Jurisdiction Clarified: The Court, in Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Versus Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat , reiterated that the territorial jurisdiction for filing a Section 138 complaint lies with the court where the payee’s bank branch (where the account is maintained) is located, not where the cheque was physically presented for collection.

• Duty of Magistrates: In Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. , the Court emphasized that magistrates must apply their minds and scrutinize complaints for suppression of material facts before issuing summons. It quashed a complaint where the complainant had withheld crucial loan documents, stating that the judicial process cannot be abused.

• Liability of Non-Executive Directors: In KS Mehta Vs. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. , the Court clarified that non-executive and independent directors cannot be held vicariously liable for a company’s cheque dishonour unless their direct, active involvement in the company's day-to-day affairs is established.

These rulings collectively aim to streamline the handling of NI Act cases, which form a substantial portion of the judiciary's docket. By setting clear procedural and jurisdictional rules, defining the scope of liability, and mandating judicial scrutiny at the initial stage, the Supreme Court seeks to curb frivolous litigation and ensure that the legal process is not used as a tool for harassment.