Summary: Client-attorney privilege in India is facing a moment of renewed scrutiny. As investigative agencies increasingly enter the professional space of advocates, the boundaries of this privilege are being tested like never before. Courts are now tasked with distinguishing between protected and unlawful conduct, while statutory safeguards under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 attempt to preserve the integrity of legal representation. This blog examines how recent jurisprudence is shaping the future of client confidentiality, raising urgent questions about privacy, procedural fairness, and the limits of investigative authority.
Client-attorney privilege serves as more than a procedural safeguard; it upholds the integrity of legal representation by ensuring that communications exchanged during the course of professional engagement remain protected. Yet, its sanctity is not absolute. The statute carves out a critical exception — communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose are not protected. This caveat demands a nuanced understanding, especially when the privilege is invoked in high-stakes investigations.
In recent times, investigative agencies have resorted to pressurising advocates by summoning them and seizing their electronic devices during search proceedings, without regard for significant privacy concerns and constitutional safeguards that underpin the legal profession. The advocate’s office, whether lined with dusty tomes or humming with hard drives, is not an ordinary workplace. It is a fortress of trust, wherein clients bare their secrets without any inhibitions, with the assurance that such information will not be leaked and confidentiality shall be maintained at all costs.
The legal provision behind client-attorney privilege
The client-attorney privilege is codified under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). This principle was previously anchored in Section 126 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The provision debars an advocate from disclosing confidential client communications without seeking specific and explicit consent from the client. This section is founded on the principle that legal advice should remain confidential, as otherwise it could impede individuals from obtaining equitable legal representation.
However, the ambit of this provision is subject to limitations prescribed in its proviso. The proviso clearly delineates the conditions under which the privilege stands abrogated — where communication is made in furtherance of an illegal act, or where the commission of a crime or fraud comes to light during the course of professional engagement. This is intended to prevent the misuse of privilege as a cover for illegality. Despite the proviso, questions on what constitutes privileged information and how it must be obtained arise.
The scope of privilege
Client-attorney privilege does not preclude the procedural legality of search and seizure actions when express statutory provisions grant authorities the power to obtain materials uncovered during such proceedings.[1]Rather, exercise of such provisions is considered objectionable if safeguards are not implemented to prevent undue and/ or improper exercise.
The Courts have repeatedly indicated that to properly apply client-attorney privilege, documents must be differentiated based on whether they expose incriminating conduct. Last year, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that while materials concerning the lawyer personally were fully usable, where the incriminating records pre-dated the lawyer’s engagement, they could not be used against clients.[2] However, if the lawyer became aware of a client’s unlawful acts during the course of engagement, only such materials could be lawfully acted upon by the authorities. Ultimately, the Court trusted senior tax officers to apply this bifurcation judiciously, though it also noted that affected clients could claim privilege in their defence. The essence of these decisions is clear: only records reflecting a lawyer’s conscious participation in unlawful activities lose privilege.
Failure to observe procedural safeguards when accessing an advocate’s digital records is equally concerning, as it risks breaching confidentiality and client-attorney privilege. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (HC) recently addressed a troubling instance in Puneet Batra v. Union of India[3], where the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities conducted a search at an advocate’s office and seized documents and the central processing unit (CPU) of his computer. The advocate argued that this violated client-attorney privilege. The HC agreed, noting that the officials had even forcibly obtained his password. The HC held that accessing an advocate’s digital files in his absence is impermissible, except in rare, court-supervised circumstances. To safeguard procedural fairness and data integrity, it also prescribed stringent conditions for any future forensic examination: the CPU must be examined in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel or expert with the court’s Information Technology (IT) officials and GST forensic expert. Investigators must also determine access dates, file activity and deletions. An affidavit then must be submitted after the drive is cloned and the CPU is sealed.
The Court unambiguously declared that the professional space of an advocate demands heightened protection. While the authorities retain the power to investigate and collect legitimate taxes, they must do so without compromising the privilege afforded to advocates, and that investigation comes with a number of inhibitions.
Concluding remarks
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the boundaries of client-attorney privilege are under sharper scrutiny than ever before. Substantively, only documents reflecting a lawyer’s conscious involvement in illegality lose protection. Procedurally, searches and seizures can proceed only under strict, appropriately supervised conditions. While authorities assert expansive powers to probe and uncover illegalities, legal professionals, too, must be allowed to defend the sanctity of privilege as essential to fair representation. Investigative zeal cannot erode the in-built protection and confidentiality accorded to a lawyer-client relationship. The real challenge lies in navigating this delicate equilibrium, ensuring that the pursuit of accountability does not erode the foundational protections that uphold the rule of law while ensuring the rights of those it serves.
For further information, please contact:
S.R. Patnaik, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
sr.patnaik@cyrilshroff.com
[1] Pooran Mal v. The Director of Inspection (1974) 1 SCC 345.
[2] Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth v. Income Tax Officer Assessment Unit 4(2)(6), Ahmedabad (SCA No. 20187 of 2023).
[3] Puneet Batra v. Union of India W.P.(C) 11021/2025 (09.09.2025) Order dated September 09, 2025.
