The Supreme Court Friday issued a series of directions to ensure strict compliance with the legal provision that an advocate cannot be summoned by investigating agencies in a case involving their client unless it satisfies the exceptions laid out in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).The SC had initiated a suo motu case following uproar over summons by the Enforcement Directorate to some senior lawyers in connection with cases allegedly involving their clients. The agency had subsequently withdrawn the summons.A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria said in its judgement that Section 132 of the BSA “is a privilege conferred on the client obliging the advocate not to disclose any professional communications made in confidence”.Section 132 of BSA deals with professional communications between an advocate and a client. It says that no advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with the client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to them in the course and for the purpose of their service as such advocate, by or on behalf of their client.This will not, however, protect from disclosure of any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose and/or any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service.“Investigating officers in the criminal cases, Station House Officers conducting preliminary enquiry in a cognizable offence, shall not issue a summons to an advocate who represents the accused to know the details of the case, unless it is covered under any of the exceptions under Section 132 BSA.”“When a summons is so issued to the advocate under any of the exceptions, it shall exclusively specify the facts on which the exception is sought to be relied upon, and shall also be issued with the consent of a superior officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police, who shall record his satisfaction as to the exception in writing before the summons is issued.”Story continues below this adThe Supreme Court ruled that such a summons will be “subject to judicial review at the instance of the advocate or the client” under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).“Production of documents of the client under the possession of an advocate will not be covered by the privilege under Section 132, even in a civil case or a criminal case. In a criminal case, the production of a document directed by a court or an officer shall be complied with by production before the Court under Section 94 of the BNSS, being regulated also by Section 165 of the BSA”.“In a civil case, the production of document shall be regulated by Section 165 of BSA and Order 16 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. On production of documents, it shall be upon the Court to decide any objections with respect to the order to produce and the admissibility of the document after hearing the advocate and the party whom the advocate represents.”The court also issued certain directions on requiring production of digital devices under Section 94 BNSS for assisting with the investigation, “If directed by an investigating officer, the direction shall only be to produce it before the jurisdictional court”.Story continues below this ad“On production of a digital device by the advocate before the Court, the Court shall issue notice to the party with respect to whom the details are sought to be discovered from the digital device, and hear the party and the advocate on any objection to the production of the digital device, discovery from it and the admissibility of that discovery. If the objections are overruled by the Court, the device shall be opened only in the presence of the party and the advocate, who will be enabled due assistance of a person having expertise in digital technology of their choice.”“While examining the digital device, the confidentiality of other clients shall not be compromised, and disclosure shall be confined to what is sought by the investigating officer, if it is found to be permissible and admissible.”The ruling made it clear that in-house counsels will not be covered under the protection under Section 132 BSA as they are not advocates practising in courts.” The court said they “will be however entitled to protection under Section 134 BSA in so far as any communication made to the legal advisor, which however cannot be claimed for the communications between the employer and the in-house counsel.”