India-Law.org

The uneasy interface between criminal investigation and the legal profession is once again under scrutiny in India. Raids on law offices, seizure of client files, and the practice of summoning advocates who have rendered legal opinions or appeared during investigation raise foundational questions about attorney–client privilege, the independence of the Bar, and the constitutional guarantee of fair trial. This article examines the statutory framework, leading decisions arguing that the time is ripe for a principled recalibration of investigative powers vis‑à-vis legal professionals.

Everyone expects absolute secrecy from their lawyer and sure enough law is the only profession legally endowed with the ‘privilege’ of client-lawyer confidentiality. The only known exception to this privilege is that communication between the lawyer and client is not for engaging in future illegal acts.  However, the essential idea is that a lawyer cannot be forced to give information about his client and invariably enforcement agencies cannot go around snooping into law offices to glance what is forbidden from being disclosed to a court. However, the laws relied upon by enforcement agencies are broadly worded and, on their face, do not carve out any express exemption for law offices or legal practitioners on the lines contained in the evidentiary statutes. On the professional regulatory side, the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules [Part VI, Chapter II, Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette] cast a duty on advocates to maintain client confidentiality and to act fearlessly in the interests of the client, subject only to the law. The intersection of these provisions generates a tension: how far can the State, in the name of investigation, intrude into the law office without undermining privilege and chilling the independence of the Bar?

There has been a recent uptick in search and seizure operations on law offices in the last few years has been justified on the grounds that the lawyers are facilitating criminal activities. Sure, there are bad apples in every profession, and private practice rewards lawyers who obtain results, but even these can’t be generalized to mean that the lawyer is running a crime ring where each client is seeking advice on how to commit future crimes. Also, clients quite often, do hold back information and their true intentions, even from their lawyers, and the lawyer himself may not be aware that his advice is meant to be misused for some iniquity. Yet, the manner in which enforcement agencies and courts in India have dealt with the issue is really problematic.

At the same time, the law cannot confer blanket immunity on advocates. Where there is tangible material suggesting that an advocate knowingly facilitated money laundering, destruction of evidence, or fabrication of documents, they stand on no different footing from other professionals. The key is to distinguish between legitimate scrutiny of alleged criminal complicity and impermissible fishing enquiries into routine legal advice.

In practice, this distinction has often been blurred. Requests for “clarification” of a legal opinion, insistence on production of internal notes, or pressure to disclose the client’s version of events, go beyond the permissible scope of investigation. They have a tendency to convert the advocate into a witness against the client, undermining the very foundation of the professional relationship.

Search and seizure operations at the premises of practising advocates pose distinctive risks that are qualitatively different from searches of ordinary business establishments. A typical law office contains files, emails, notes, and draft opinions relating to multiple clients, many of whom may have no connection with the investigation in question. Unfettered access to such material can:

• Expose confidential communications unrelated to the alleged offence, thereby infringing statutory privilege;
• Compromise ongoing litigation strategies and defence preparation;
• Generate a chilling effect on clients’ willingness to make full and frank disclosure to their lawyers; and
• Undermine public confidence in the independence and safety of professional legal advice.

The Gujarat High Court, Allahabad High Court & Delhi High Court seem to have been busy in dealing with such cases. There is an ongoing writ by Advocate Nitin Garg before the Allahabad High Court & another by Advocate Puneet Batra before the Delhi High Court. The Gujarat High Court in Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth v ITO, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4619 decided a case where the search and seizure was conducted on an advocate’s office on the basis of ‘discreet information’ that the advocate allegedly assists his clients, in an illegal manner, in carrying out land transactions. The matter was justified in court by the department by placing the details of the decision required to be formed u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in a ‘sealed’ cover, and based on certain recoveries, including cash. The court inter alia held that the department could in fact do the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it could examine the entire seized records of ‘all’ clients and satisfy itself whether ‘any’ incriminating tax evasion is being actively done and take necessary action. That matter is now in appeal before the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, (2026) 2 SCC 233, gave detailed directions w.r.t. summoning advocates and summoning information from them. Some of these directions also have relevance w.r.t. search & seizure, though the judgment does not deal with the subject.

However, the law w.r.t. privileged communication is not as developed in India as one would expect when compared with other jurisdictions. This can be seen from the following, –

A. Nature of Legal Privilege: “Legal Professional Privilege” in relation to advocate-client falls within two broad aspects. “Legal Advice Privilege” relates to free and frank communication by client to obtain advice in relation to any conveyancing, ongoing and probable legal problems, or probable litigation, etc. Another kind of privilege is “Litigation Privilege” covers actions where the “dominant purpose” is in relation to any ongoing or anticipated litigation; this will include even communication with “third parties”, such as witness interviews, advice from expert witnesses, internal investigations, etc necessary for defence or prosecution of a claim. [See, Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v Prime Displays Pvt. Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 267]

Legal advice privilege is different from the general confidentiality that people repose in a priest, doctor, auditor or accountant. Such professionals can be compelled to disclose any relevant information, on exercise of any statutory provision requiring disclosure or relevant court order. However, legal advice privilege keeps the communication between the client and lawyer beyond such disclosure directions unless it is proved that legal advice privilege has been waived or displaced due to being in furtherance of illegality. Legal advice privilege relates to the very administration of justice, fundamental in nature and does not require further balancing of interest qua other public interests, including income tax concerns. [Regina (Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd.) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., [2003] 1 AC 563 (HL), para 16]

Thus, evidence otherwise relevant can be excluded from being admitted on the ground of privilege. [B and Ors. v. Aukland District Law Society and Anr., [2003] 3 WLR 859 (Privy Council), para 46-54]. It is settled law, that privileged material if unlawfully seized from an advocate in a search and seizure, is liable to be returned forthwith. [Regina v Okadere, (2014) 1 WLR 4071 (CA), para 81 & Queen v Laallee, Rackel & Heintz & Anr., 2002 SCC Online Can SC 61, para 49, guideline 10] This is because, the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act/Section 132 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 make privileged material inadmissible.

B. Legal privilege exists in respect of search and seizure also: In most Income Tax cases, especially the Gujarat case, the seizing authorities have sought to deny the applicability of the legal privilege in their proceedings. The Supreme Court in IN RE: Summoning Advocates, (2026) 2 SCC 233 made it clear that the privilege applies atleast in respect of summons. The content of legal privilege today cannot be limited to what is found in the Evidence Act, 1872 or the BSA which applies only to Court proceedings. To shed more light on this privilege it is necessary to refer to Anglo-American jurisprudence where its origin and content are rooted. Thus, legal privilege has been extended to search and seizure, investigatory proceedings among others. Reference may be made to,

1. B and Ors. v. Aukland District Law Society and Anr., [2003] 3 WLR 859 (Privy Council), para 65;
2. Regina (Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd.) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., [2003] 1 AC 563 (HL), para 7-9, 33, 38 and 39.

The Executive cannot simply undertake search and seizure because advocates will not produce documents which they are bound to protect under legal advice privilege. The primary purpose of search and seizure is for the purpose of ‘collecting evidence’ whereas a privileged communication is not capable of being evidence, hence is incapable of being subjected to ‘search and seizure’ unless the privilege is waived or there is prima facie evidence that it is inapplicable. Invariably, if a communication is protected by privilege it is not capable of being produced in a legal ‘proceeding’, then the same cannot be considered as ‘useful or relevant to the proceeding’ for undertaking ‘search and seizure’.

Legal advice privilege relates to the very administration of justice and does not require further balancing of interest qua other public interests. [Grenfell’s case, para 16(HL)]. In all these jurisdictions it is now well settled that the legal advice privilege has to be read into the statutory provisions if the said provision is silent on the subject. Reference may be made to the following cases, –

1. Daniels Corporation International pty Ltd. v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, (2002) 192 ALR 561, para 10, 32-37;
2. Regina (Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd.) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., [2003] 1 AC 563 (HL), para 7-9, 33, 38 and 39;
3. B and Ors. v. Aukland District Law Society and Anr., [2003] 3 WLR 859 (Privy Council), para 58 to 59.

C. Protection applies to the ‘communication’ between attorney-client & not documents given to advocate: Legal privilege is in respect of the communication between advocates & clients. Thus, questions asked, opinion given (oral or written), drafts exchanged are reasonably protected. Similarly, even summons for documents cannot be issued to an advocate acting in the course of his duties, to discover instructions given as part of advocate client communications. [R v Derby Magistrate’s Court, Ex p. B, [1996] AC 487 (HL), page 496-497, 500-503, 504-509 quashing witness summons to a solicitor to seek details of instructions given by his client in a murder trial]

However, a person cannot give documents to an advocate merely to prevent their production. This limitation has been recognized in the directions given IN RE: Summoning Advocates, (2026) 2 SCC 233.

Further, indirect attempts to seek privileged information through accounting record of advocates in relation to clients by accessing accounts, seeking names etc., maintained by advocates is part of legal privilege as it has the potential to reveal the clients’ legal problems, particulars of work performed if maintained part of such accounts, topic of consultation, etc. which may be part of privileged information. Hence attempts to access privileged client information under the guise of summons or search and seizure directed at the advocate personally should also enjoy the same protection. [See, Attorney General of Canada and Canada Revenue Agency v Chambre des nnotaries du Quebec and Barreau du Quebec, 2016 SCC Online Can SC 14, para 73-75, 78 and 85]

D. “Sealed Envelope mode”: Not allowing the ‘discreet information’ to be traversed when seizure is challenged:  Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961/Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025 have the phrase ‘in consequence of information in his possession has reason to believe that’ i.e. search & seizure is justified if information in possession enables the authority to have a reason to believe that due to possession of documents or books which will not be produced if summoned or possession of unaccounted income, etc. Mostly it is done on the basis of ‘discreet information’. There are fundamental problems with ‘discreet’ information being the source of search and seizure, especially when it is vague and not specific. Section 125 of the Evidence Act/Section 131 of BSA provides that the revenue and other authorities cannot be compelled to disclose the source of information as to commission of violations. While this secrecy in law is provided for public purpose, authorities have also been known to have professional sources and witnesses. Hence, to ensure that the power of search and seizure is not misused, the satisfaction of the authority is required to be recorded and there must be ‘material’ to justify the decision to undertake the search. Invariably, the CDBT has issued Instruction No. 7 of 2003 that there must be ‘compelling evidence’ and ‘confirmation of substantial tax evasion’ prior to the search. These must be scrupulously followed, else any enforcement agency can out of spite target a successful law firm or lawyer representing several accused by simply recording a ‘discreet’ source indicating that indicating illegal transactions are being done without any verifiable particulars. And if there are verifiable particulars in the form of ‘compelling evidence’, then there is no reason for not placing them on the record, instead of a sealed envelope, after removing the details of the source.

E. ‘Locus’ of the Appellant Advocate to object to access of privileged material: There is no requirement for the client to mandatorily assert legal advice privilege, on the contrary it is the consent to disclosure which must be established by the person claiming access to privileged material.

There is a fundamental problem in the decision in IN RE: Summoning Advocates, (2026) 2 SCC 233, para 71 the judicial notice is envisaged to the particular client whose details are sought to be discovered before opening the digital evidence to examine the satisfaction wrt the facts recorded in the summons. If the standard laid down in this judgment is applied to search & seizure then it may be wholly unworkable in large law firms in a broad en masse seizure as it would be tantamount to asking hundreds of clients of just one law firm to approach the court to object to the seizure and incur additional litigation costs. assert legal advice privilege.

The approach of the Indian Court is totally opposite of UK Courts. In UK there is no requirement for the client to mandatorily assert legal advice privilege; on the contrary it is the exception/consent to disclosure/waiver that needs to be established by the person/authority seeking access to the privileged material. [Addlesse & Ors v. Dentons Europe LLP, [2020] Ch 243 (CA), para 13, 29, 31, 41-43 and 44]

The advocate as the repository of the privileged material i.e. advocate-client communication, he is obligated to protect such information and assert the privilege in defence of the client, whether or not the client expressly approaches the court/tribunal/authority. See, Regina (Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd.) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., [2003] 1 AC 563 (HL), para 25.

F. Justifying decision to undertake seizure using seized material: This is something every agency is prone to do, especially common in Income Tax proceedings. The Supreme Court in Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank, (2021) 6 SCC 707 when dealing with seizure u/s 17 of the PMLA made it clear that, “The action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the contents of the impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court.” The Court directed release of the seized account as the seizure was illegal.

This concept of justifying the decision to undertake seizure using seized material is totally alien to the letter of the law and must immediately stop. It is when the justification to do the search is lacking that the enforcement agencies are more prone to use recoveries to justify the search, and false evidence can even be planted in case nothing is found. Even if evidence is found, the lawyer may have no idea of the true intentions of his clients and would prima facie be justified in opposing the search unless the department shows actual evidence of ongoing iniquity.

Seized material is generally required to be sealed. Such sealing of seized material till leave of the court/tribunal is obtained will align with the requirement that seized material not be used to show the prima facie proof for justifying the decision of the authority to fall within the proviso to Section 126 of the Evidence Act/ Section 132(1) of the BSA. [Queen v Laallee, Rackel & Heintz & Anr., 2002 SCC Online Can SC 61, para 49, guideline 8]

Merely recording decisions based on ‘discreet information’ and/or ‘reason to suspect’ to take action against advocates which would result in disclosure of privileged information is also frowned upon as a fishing inquiry. Reference may be made to the following cases, –

1. H L Sibal v CIT, (1976) 103 ITR 606 (Punj), [IT dept search and seizure targeting lawyers in Chandigarh] para 40, 43, 45, 63-66, 71 and 74;
2. Ajit Jain v Union of India, (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del) affirmed in Union of India v Ajit Jain, (2003) 260 ITR 80;
3. Khem Chand Mukim v Pr. Dr. IT & Ors., (2020) 423 ITR 129 (Del);
4. Mectec v Dr. of IT, (2021) 433 ITR 203 (Tel).

In respect of legal privilege, it is settled atleast in the UK, that mere allegations or suspicion that the lawyer is engaged in advising client on future violations is not sufficient to displace the legal privilege in this regard and a prima facie case based on evidence prior to the disclosure should to be made out to support the making of disclosure of information from the lawyer. Reference may be had to the following cases, –

1. Bullivant & Ors. v AG for Victoria, [1901] AC 196 (HL), pages 200-201 and 203;
2. O’ Rourke v Darbishire & Ors., [1920] AC 581 (HL), page 604 & 613;
3. Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP & Ors., [2024] 3 WLR 403 (CA), para 50, 53, 55, 60, 63 71, 72, 84-90.

G. En masse seizure: When ‘discreet information’ conflicts with the proviso of Section 126 of the Evidence Act/ Section 132(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: En masse seizures of all client files is the usual norm by search and seizure practices. For the proviso of Section 126 of the Evidence Act/ Section 132(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam to operate, i.e. for privilege not to apply, the ‘such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose’. It is relevant to note that ‘such communication’ confines the operation of the proviso to a particular instance in relation to a particular client. The law does not declare that one instance will make privilege inapplicable in respect of each and every client and every instance where the client communication exists. If ‘discreet information’ is to be of the nature to claim that privilege does not apply, Indian Courts must call upon the seizing authority to limit seizure only in respect of a particular client in respect of whom justifiable ‘discreet information’ exists.

Thus, en masse seizure of all client files should clearly be prohibited. Reference may be made to the following case where en masse seizure of client files has been struck down, – Klitzman, Klitzman and Gallagher v. Robert J. Krut, Vernon Holmes, W. Hunt Dumont, Michaelmilner, 744 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1984) (US CA).

Reference can be made to the direction “3.3 While examining the digital device, care shall be taken by the Court not to impair the confidentiality with respect to the other clients of the Advocate and the discovery shall be confined to that sought by the Investigating Officer, if it is found to be permissible and admissible.” in IN RE: Summoning Advocates, which seems to indicate that examination is limited to only a particular client and confidentiality of ‘other clients’ is not impaired even after the seizure. However, there is no clarity in the judgment how this will be achieved. The Court justified this direction as follows,- ‘We specifically bring in this requirement with regard to production of digital device in Court since the digital device so produced by a lawyer may contain not only the material required by the Court or the officer, but also other material in relation to his other clients.’ If this line of reasoning is correct, then en masse seizures in India should also be prohibited and the seizure confined to client file/transaction with respect to the client referred to in the ‘discreet information’ or ‘reason to believe’.

The most obvious problem of en masse seizure is that the seizing authority undertakes an examination of all client files whether or not there is discreet information of illegality w.r.t. to each such client. In some cases, they may be magnanimous to offer an independent authority to review the evidence. Both are equally contrary to law and an independent authority just adds a further third party to whom privileged information is shared. This approach was allowed in Dept of Income Tax v S. R. Batliboi & Co., (2009) 17 SCC 767 which relate to seizure of laptops from auditors. While similar in many aspects, lawyers are legally placed on a different pedestal. The confidentiality expected from a bank, a doctor, a priest, a accountant or auditor is entirely different in law, from that of a lawyer. All these other entities are expected to maintain confidentiality unless ‘compelled’ by the law to speak, a lawyer on the other hand can’t be compelled even by the law, unless he is himself party to an ongoing crime- called the ‘iniquity’ exception. This privilege, much like the legal profession has been shaped in its present form in the UK. The recent judgment of the UK Court of Appeal in Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP & Ors., very clearly lays down the correct approach when dealing with the exception to privilege, known as the iniquity exception. The approach that the authority or some independent authority must go through all the seized material pertaining to all clients of a lawyer to determine which material is covered by privilege and what is not covered by privilege is totally contrary to law. It would greatly diminish the privilege if the “secret must be told in order to see if it ought to be kept”. This review of documents to decide which client is being advised in furtherance of an illegality is in itself proof of a fishing inquiry.

H. Section 94 of the BNSS and Section 161 of the BSA cannot apply unless the prima facie evidence shown/recorded wrt satisfaction of the proviso to Section 132 of the BSA is judicially tested: There are two different approaches when dealing with production of documents. One is that the document must be produced and then inspected (except in case of matters of State, where they can’t be inspected without first deciding the objection- the exact opposite test for the State when it claims privilege) by the court to decide objections wrt its admissibility which is reflected in Section 94 of the BNSS [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and Section 165 of the BSA. Unfortunately, in IN RE: Summoning Advocates, (2026) 2 SCC 233, the Supreme Court expressly relied upon these provisions and earlier Indian cases. The application of these provisions to legal privilege u/s 132 has hitherto not been doubted.

As explained earlier, the law in Anglo-American jurisdictions have developed much further and these general evidentiary provisions for production of documents derived from earlier Macaulian statutes need to be read down and seen in light of the fact that the production for summons or search & seizure order recording ‘reasons to believe’ must first disclose the specific facts that satisfy the proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, and these be tested before ordering production.

It is the Author’s view that this is exact point in law, where the judgment IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, (2026) 2 SCC 233 arrives at an erroneous view in law, as the relevant precedents were never placed before it. Thus, it inter alia directed that, –

“1.2 When a summons is so issued to an Advocate, under any of the exceptions, it shall explicitly specify the facts on which the exception is sought to be relied upon, which shall also be with the consent of the 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.

1.3 A summons so issued shall be subject to judicial review at the instance of the Advocate or the client under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1.4 The Advocate on whom there is an obligation of non-disclosure as per Section 132 of the BSA shall be one who is engaged in a litigation or in a non-litigious or a pre-litigation matter.

2. Production of documents in the possession of the Advocate or the client will not be covered under the privilege conferred by Section 132, either in a civil case or a criminal case.

2.1 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. 2.2 In a civil case, the production of a document shall be regulated by Section 165 of BSA and Order XVI Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2.3 On production of such document, it shall be upon the Court to decide on any objection filed 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 result of these directions is that the production of documents is ordered before the satisfaction recorded in the summons is judicially tested. The ‘reason to believe’ has to be tested based on the prima facie evidence with the authority before the search & seizure or summons as seen from Opto Circuit India Ltd case & UK cases. There is no need for production of the document on which privilege is claimed to be inapplicable without first deciding this objection, as it would greatly diminish the privilege if the “secret must be told in order to see if it ought to be kept” as seen from the UK cases. In respect of advocate-client communication the privilege is not mere inadmissibility, it is ‘disclosure’ which is prohibited when the evidentiary law is read with Bar Council of India Rules. What would be the point of ordering that summons or search & seizure was not justified, after all documents are produced/unsealed before the Court.

Comparative jurisprudence offers useful guidance on how to balance investigative needs with legal professional privilege. In the United Kingdom, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and associated Codes of Practice provide enhanced safeguards for “excluded material” and “special procedure material”, which include confidential communications between a professional legal adviser and their client. Search warrants targeting law offices are subject to stricter judicial scrutiny and, in some circumstances, require prior approval from a circuit judge.

Similarly, in many European jurisdictions, searches of law offices must be conducted in the presence of a representative of the Bar or an independent judicial officer, with immediate segregation of materials that appear to be privileged. Disputes about privilege are typically resolved by a court before investigators are permitted to access the contested material.

Hopefully, the approach of enforcement agencies towards search & seizure of law offices will be tempered by some inner enlightenment or a more cautious approach developed by Courts, as the interface between advocates and enforcement agencies will only get more heated in coming times. In Re: Summoning Advocates laid down an important marker against the harassment of lawyers for bona fide professional acts. Yet, evolving investigative practices and the increasing complexity of economic offences suggest that a fresh judicial look is warranted. A carefully crafted framework, grounded in constitutional principles and informed by international standards, can safeguard both the integrity of criminal investigations and the indispensable role of the legal profession in the administration of justice.

**********

-Chaudhary Suraj, Advocate, Bombay High Court