Extending Legal Privilege to In-House Counsel in India

Authors

• L Viswanathan, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
• Animesh Bisht, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas

Abstract

Client-attorney privilege is a cornerstone of the rule of law, yet its extension to in-house counsel in India remains fraught with uncertainty. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025, reinforced a status-based exclusion, holding that in-house counsel fall outside the definition of “Advocate” under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, and therefore cannot claim privilege under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This paper examines the Indian statutory framework and judicial approach, situating India’s position within a comparative analysis of leading jurisdictions. Central to the analysis is the principle that privilege vests in the client and exists to ensure frank communication with legal advisers, so any curtailment cannot rest on the mere employment status of an otherwise qualified adviser. The paper argues that legislative reform, coupled with enhanced professional standards and structural safeguards for independence, is essential to vindicate the client’s right to privileged communication with in-house counsel in India.

Recommended Citation

Viswanathan, L and Bisht, Animesh (2026) "Extending Legal Privilege to In-House Counsel in India," National Law School of India Review: Vol. 37: Iss. 2, Article 1.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.55496/VNXM9179
Available at: https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol37/iss2/1

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

http://doi.org/10.55496/VNXM9179