Supreme Court Weekly Digest October 24 - 31, 2025]

Advocate - Procedure for Summoning an Advocate (in exceptional cases) - Status of in-house counsel - Supreme Court laid down procedure for summoning advocates in exceptional cases - i. An Investigating Officer (I.O.) can only summon an Advocate if the I.O. has knowledge of an issue that falls under the exceptions to Section 132 of the BSA (e.g., communication made in furtherance of an illegal purpose)- In such a case, the summons must specifically mention the exception under which the Advocate is being summoned; ii. Any summons issued against an Advocate by an I.O. must be with the prior approval and satisfaction of the hierarchical Superior, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police (SP), and a reasoned order must be recorded; iii. In-house counsel are not entitled to the professional privilege under Section 132 of the BSA since they are not Advocates practicing in Courts as spoken of in the BSA- they would be entitled to the protection under Section 134 insofar as any communication made to the legal advisor of their employer- The protection under Section 134 cannot be claimed for the communications between the employer and the In-house counsel themselves. [Relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1; Paras 48-50, 59-67] In Re : Summoning Advocates, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051 : 2025 INSC 1275 Advocate - Treatment of Advocate's Digital Devices and Confidentiality- Supreme Court held that - i. While examining any digital device of an Advocate, care shall be taken by the Court not to impair the confidentiality with respect to the other clients of the Advocate; ii. The discovery shall be strictly confined to the information sought by the Investigating Officer, provided it is found to be permissible and admissible. [Paras 54 - 58] In Re : Summoning Advocates, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051 : 2025 INSC 1275 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitral Award - Unexplained Delay – Validity – Held, an inordinate and unexplained delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award (in the pre-Section 29A era) is not, per se, a ground for setting aside an award under Section 34. However, where the negative effect of such delay is explicit and adversely reflects on the findings in the award, it can be construed to be in conflict with the public policy of India or vitiated by patent illegality - Section 14(2) not mandatory pre-condition: An aggrieved party is not required to invoke the remedy under Section 14(2) of the Act (termination of the arbitrator's mandate) as a condition precedent to laying a challenge to a delayed and tainted award under Section 34, as both provisions operate independently. [Para 19, 20, 48, 63] Lancor Holdings v. Prem Kumar Menon, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1056 : 2025 INSC 1277 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Unworkable Award - Patent Illegality - Public Policy – Held, the very basis and public policy underlying the process of arbitration is the achievement of a speedy and final resolution of disputes. An arbitral award that is unworkable in that it fails to finally settle the disputes but instead irrevocably alters the parties' pre-existing balance and compels them to initiate a fresh round of arbitration/litigation defeats this public policy - Such an unworkable arbitral award would not only be in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) but would also be patently illegal on the face of it under Section 34(2A). [Relied on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 14 SCC 231; Para 20, 48, 55, 58, 59, 63] Lancor Holdings v. Prem Kumar Menon, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1056 : 2025 INSC 1277 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA); Section 132 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); Section 179 – Constitution of India; Articles 14, 21 – Advocate-Client Privilege - Advocate-Client Privilege – Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Agencies – Held, Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police cannot directly summon a lawyer who is appearing in a case to elicit details of the case, as this would violate the statutory privilege conferred by Section 132 of the BSA and infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution (Articles 14 and 21) - The privilege is a fundamental feature of a fair and free legal system, which requires an atmosphere of uninhibited communication between a client and their legal representative. [Paras 24-28] In Re : Summoning Advocates, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051 : 2025 INSC 1275 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 - Suspension of Sentence and Bail - Supreme Court expressed dismay at an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which suspended the sentences of two murder convicts on the condition to plant 10 saplings each as a matter of social cause - Held that Order did not disclose any reason whatsoever as to the basis on which the bail had been granted - Noted that the High Court imposed a condition that the ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest October 24 - 31, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags