The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Centre, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and others on a petition raising concerns over alleged breaches of privileges of lawyers and the lack of adequate safeguards for the legal profession.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought responses while hearing a petition filed by advocate Aaditya Gore, who has been persistently urging the central government since 2014 to introduce the long-pending Advocates Bill aimed at reinforcing protections for lawyers.
The petition, filed in public interest, calls for the formation of a committee under Section 10 of the Advocates Act, 1961, to address the pressing issues faced by the legal community, including the growing trend of investigative agencies summoning lawyers for merely offering legal advice to clients.
The bench also tagged Gore’s plea with an ongoing suo motu matter concerning the summoning of advocates by probe agencies in relation to cases involving their clients. This linkage indicates a broader judicial review of the professional challenges being faced by lawyers in the criminal justice system.
Appearing for Gore, advocate Nishant R Katneshwarkar informed the court that his client has been pursuing the Centre and the BCI for nearly 11 years to draft and pass the Advocates Bill. “During the pendency of the bill before the Law Commission, the petitioner also urged the BCI to frame rules under Section 7 of the Advocates Act to protect lawyers’ privileges,” the plea states.
The petition points to rising incidents of assaults and threats against advocates, asserting that such acts compromise not only the dignity of individual lawyers but also the broader integrity of the justice delivery system. It underscores that safeguarding the independence and safety of advocates is crucial to ensuring the fearless and effective functioning of the legal system.
“The attacks on advocates severely undermine the dignity and functionality of the administration of justice,” the petition notes, urging the judiciary to intervene and direct statutory bodies to take proactive steps.
The court has now sought replies from the Centre and the BCI, and the matter is expected to be taken up further alongside the pending suo motu proceedings concerning legal privilege and the role of advocates in ongoing investigations.
