Supreme Court on Privileged Communications

Syllabus: GS2/Governance

In News

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed the vital role of advocates in a constitutional democracy, ruling that lawyers cannot be compelled to disclose client communications unless the legal advice is used to commit or conceal a crime. 

Background 

• The judgment arose from suo motu proceedings after an Ahmedabad police officer issued a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS, 2023, summoning a defence counsel to reveal case details.

What are privileged communications?

• Privileged communications refer to confidential exchanges between certain protected relationships, such as attorney-client and spousal, that the law shields from being disclosed or compelled as evidence in court. 
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, protects privileged communications from being disclosed in court.
• Sections 128–134 outline these safeguards.
  •  Section 128 shields marital communications, even post-divorce, unless in cases of inter-spousal crime or litigation. 
  • Section 129 restricts access to unpublished official records without departmental approval to protect national interest.
  • Section 132 upholds advocate-client confidentiality by prohibiting disclosure of professional communications.

Latest Observations of Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court ruled that compelling a lawyer to disclose client communications—except under specific exceptions in Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023—violates the constitutional right to a fair trial. 
• The Court emphasized that legal professional privilege protects the accused’s right to equitable representation and cannot be bypassed by summoning the lawyer unless the communication involves client consent, illegal purposes, or observed criminal activity. 
• By linking this privilege to Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination), the Court constitutionalised it as a safeguard for citizens, not a lawyer’s privilege.
• It also affirmed that advocates are constitutional actors‘’ vital to the justice system, and forcing them to testify against clients undermines Articles 14 and 21 by collapsing the boundary between defence and prosecution.

Importance 

• The Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the constitutional right to effective legal representation under Articles 21 and 22(1), citing landmark cases like M.H. Hoskot and Hussainara Khatoon.
• It curbs investigative overreach by affirming that police powers under Section 179 of the BNSS cannot breach lawyer-client confidentiality. 
• The ruling restores institutional balance, asserting that professional privilege protects not lawyers, but the citizen’s right to fair defence.

Source :TH