Indian courts have often upheld the principle of attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications exchanged between an advocate/attorney and their client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Indian law treats legal privilege as a qualified right. The boundaries also continue to evolve, especially in the context of internal corporate investigations, where courts and regulators are increasingly called upon to balance the confidentiality of legal advice with the demands of regulatory oversight and transparency.

In recent years, regulatory and enforcement bodies, including the Enforcement Directorate, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office have increasingly sought access to communications between attorneys and corporate clients during investigations into financial crimes, compliance breaches, or corporate misconduct. These agencies often argue that certain documents or legal opinions are central to establishing facts, tracing financial transactions, or proving intent. This results in a gray area where privilege is weighed against the public interest in enforcement, especially in white-collar and regulatory matters.

A recent case highlights the ongoing issues around legal privilege. A practicing advocate was summoned by the police to provide information about a client who had filed a bail application. In response, the Supreme Court in Aswinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat & Anr [2025] took note of the broader implications and sought the views of key legal bodies, including the Attorney General of India, the Bar Council of India, and the Supreme Court Bar Association. The Court raised two key questions: (i) can a lawyer who is only advising a client be directly summoned by investigators, and (ii) if there are allegations of a lawyer’s deeper involvement, should a court first review the matter before allowing such a summons. The Court’s approach indicates that a more structured and protective framework for legal professionals may be on the horizon.

The status of communications with in-house legal counsel has been particularly contentious in India. Judicial determinations often depend on the specific context, nature and purpose of communication, making the application of privilege in these scenarios fact-specific and variable.