List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court of India 

 Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria of the Supreme Court held that investigating agencies cannot summon advocates merely because they appeared for or advised an accused person in a case. 

The Court gave this ruling in case, titled In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases (2025). 

The judgment stated that such actions by investigating officers infringe the independence of the legal profession and the fundamental rights of advocates and their clients under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The matter originated when an advocate was summoned by the Ahmedabad Police under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, merely for having represented an accused in a bail matter. 
• The High Court of Gujarat refused to quash the summons, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance of the issue, citing its wide implications for the legal fraternity and the administration of justice. 
• Multiple bar bodies — including the Supreme Court Bar Association, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, and the Bar Council of India — intervened, asserting that the summons violated the attorney-client privilege guaranteed under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which mirrors Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
• It was argued that compelling lawyers to reveal communications with clients not only breaches professional ethics but also undermines the right of an accused to a fair defence. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The Court analysed Sections 132 to 134 of the BSA, 2023, which deal with professional communications between advocates and their clients, and held that: 

• An advocate cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made to him by a client during professional service, except in limited situations such as when the communication furthers an illegal purpose or reveals a crime or fraud committed after engagement. 
• The privilege of confidentiality continues even after the lawyer-client relationship ends. 
• The right to non-disclosure of professional communication is an extension of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). 
• Section 179 of the BNSS does not authorize police officers to summon advocates for information regarding their clients. 
• Any such attempt violates the independence of the Bar, the right to legal representation, and the administration of justice. 

The Court further observed that “the power to summon is not the power to destroy”, and cannot be used to interfere with privileged communications while constitutional courts remain functional. 

What is Section 132 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam? 

Section 132: Professional Communications 

 (1) No advocate, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his service as such advocate, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional service, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such service: Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure of—  

(a)any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;  

(b)any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service. 

(2) It is immaterial whether the attention of such advocate referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1), was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. Explanation.—The obligation stated in this section continues after the professional service has ceased. 

(3)The provisions of this section shall apply to interpreters, and the clerks or employees of advocates. 

Important Illustrations of Section 132 of BSA 

(a) A, a client, says to B, an advocate—"I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me". As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.  

(b)A, a client, says to B, an advocate—"I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue". This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.  

(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an advocate, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A's account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his professional service. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his service, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that when a plaintiff is not in possession of the property, and the title itself is under dispute, a decree for injunction simpliciter cannot be granted without seeking declaration of ownership or recovery of possession. 

The Supreme Court pronounced this in the case of S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal (2025). 

What was the Background of S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal Case? 

• The case arose out of a family dispute regarding agricultural land measuring 1.74½ acres, originally owned by Rangaswamy Naidu, the father of the parties. 
• The respondent-plaintiff D. Rajammal filed a suit for injunction against her brother Munuswamy, seeking to restrain him from alienating or interfering with her possession of half the property (0.87¼ acres), based on a Will dated 30.09.1985 executed by their father. 
• Rajammal claimed that her father had bequeathed the land equally to her and her brother Govindarajan. The defendant, however, asserted that the property was ancestral, and that there had been a division of property in 1983, during their father’s lifetime, giving him rights and possession. 
• The Trial Court held that the Will was valid and granted injunctions in favour of the plaintiff. 
• The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, finding that the testator had no authority to will away ancestral property. 
• The High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court’s decree. 
• Aggrieved, the legal heirs of the defendant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the suit and found that the plaintiff had admitted that the defendant was in possession of the property. 

The Court observed that: 

• The plaintiff, while relying on the Will, did not seek a declaration of title or recovery of possession, despite admitting that she was not in physical possession. 
• An injunction simpliciter cannot be granted when title is disputed and possession is not with the plaintiff. 
• The principle that “possession follows title” applies only when ownership is undisputed; here, the ownership itself was under a cloud. 
• The Court further observed that though the Will was proved, the right of the father to bequeath the property remained uncertain, as the property appeared ancestral in character. 

The Court, therefore, held that injunction against interference with possession could not be granted. However, injunction against alienation was upheld to maintain status quo, since neither party’s title was conclusively established. 

What is a Suit of Injunction? 

• Injunction is a remedy which is asked for from the Court prevent breach of any obligation that exists in favor of a person.  
• According to the duration of injunction there are two types of injunctions:  
  • Permanent Injunction:  
    • A permanent injunction is a court order that restrains a party from engaging in certain conduct or compels them to perform specific acts.  
    • It is considered a final and permanent remedy, distinct from preliminary injunctions, which are issued on a temporary basis during the pendency of a legal proceeding.  
    • Permanent or Perpetual injunction is granted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA).  
    • Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of SRA states that a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favor, whether expressly or by implication. 
  • Temporary Injunction:   
    • Order XXXIX of the CPC specifically deals with temporary injunctions.    
    • It outlines the conditions under which a court may grant an injunction to restrain a party from doing a particular act or to compel a party to do a specific act.    
    • The key considerations include:   
      • The likelihood of success on the merits of the case.   
      • The possibility of irreparable harm to the applicant.   
      • The balance of convenience between the parties.