Supreme court landmark judgment investigation agencies cannot submit advocate for legal advice

*Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment: Investigating Agencies Cannot Summon Lawyers for Providing Legal Advice*

*Key Points of the Judgment:*

- *Role and Rights of Lawyers*: Lawyers' role is limited to providing legal advice and protecting the interests of their clients. Investigating agencies must ensure that there are specific allegations or evidence against the lawyer before summoning them.
- *Limitations of Investigating Agencies*: Investigating agencies must protect the rights and professional role of lawyers, allowing them to provide independent and unbiased legal advice to their clients.

*Importance of the Judgment:*

- *Freedom and Security of Lawyers*: This judgment is crucial for protecting the freedom and professional role of lawyers, enabling them to provide legal advice without fear.
- *Confidentiality of Legal Advice*: The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships, fostering trust between clients and lawyers.
- *Guidelines for Investigating Agencies*: The judgment provides guidelines for investigating agencies on how to interact with lawyers and respect their rights, ensuring transparency and fairness in the legal process.

*Case Details:*

- *Case Name:* Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- *Case Number:* SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9334/2025
- *Court:* Supreme Court of India
- *Date of Judgment:* June 25, 2025
- *Judges:* Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

*Court's Order:*

The court held that investigating agencies cannot summon lawyers for providing legal advice, as it may compromise the independence of the judiciary. The court directed investigating agencies to respect the rights and professional role of lawyers and allow them to provide legal advice without fear. The court also restrained the investigating agencies from summoning the lawyer in this case.

*Copy of the Court's Order:*

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9334/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-06-2025 in SCRA No. 5349/2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad] ASHWINKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 148847/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 148848/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 25-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Siddharth H. Dave, Adv. Mr. Prafull Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Maulik Soni, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) : UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. This special leave petition raises a question of grave public importance. The question is whether at all and if so under what circumstances can the Investigating Agencies directly issue summon to question a counsel who is appearing for a party in a given case. The matter arises this way. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate having enrolled in 1997. He regularly appears and practiced before all the Courts across the State of Gujarat. The petitioner is also the President of Vastral Advocates Association in Gujarat. 2. It appears that on 24.06.2024 an agreement...


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GOVT JOB OR PRIVATE JOB

Image
Lokayukta raid in Karnataka , where a former clerk, Kalakappa Nidagundi, from the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) was found to possess assets significantly disproportionate to his known income.  Here's a summary of the findings: Disproportionate Assets: Despite a modest monthly salary of ₹15,000, Nidagundi, a former daily-wage clerk in Koppal, was found to own assets worth over ₹30 crore during a Lokayukta raid. Seized Properties: The raid unearthed a vast amount of property including 24 residential houses, four plots, and 40 acres of agricultural land, registered in his name and those of his wife and brother. Other Valuables: Officials also seized 350 grams of gold, 1.5 kilograms of silver ornaments, and four vehicles (two cars and two two-wheelers) from his residence. Allegations of Fraud: Nidagundi, along with a former KRIDL engineer ZM Chincholkar, is accused of orchestrating a ₹72 crore scam by creating fake documents and bills for 96 incomplete infr...
Read more

That Res-judicata is a mixed question of law & fact and hence it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under order XIV Rule 2 (2) of CPC.

Image
 *Headnotes*  - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV Rule 2 - The plea of res judicata in appropriate cases may be determined as preliminary issue when it is neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law and fact - Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. [Referred to Ramesh B. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors (2006) 5 SCC 638 ] (Para 20, 30) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV Rule 2 , Order XX Rule 5, Order XLI Rules 24 & 25- To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to rec...
Read more

How to become advocate on record complete procedure

Image
How to become advocate on the record complete procedure To become an **Advocate on Record (AOR) at the Supreme Court of India**, one must meet specific qualifications, undergo mandatory training, pass the AOR Examination, and fulfill a set of procedural requirements[1][2][3]. ## Eligibility Criteria - **Enrolment as Advocate:** Must be enrolled with any State Bar Council and be a practicing advocate[1][4][2]. - **Experience:** A minimum of 4 years of continuous practice is required before starting AOR training; total experience should be at least five years before applying for AOR status[1][2]. - **Training:** Must complete 1 year of training under a designated Advocate on Record after completing four years of practice[1][2][3]. ## Training Requirements - The candidate must work under an existing AOR for one year, learning Supreme Court procedures and practices[1][2][3]. - At the end of training, obtain a certificate from the AOR mentor[5]. ## Application and Examination Process - **Ap...
Read more