The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that it is unfortunate and disturbing to see an investigating officer summoning a defence counsel representing the accused in a case [Agniva Sarkar v The Union of India & Ors].

Justice Ananda Sen observed that communication between an advocate and their client is privileged.

“Summoning of an Advocate, who is defending the accused, by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating the crime, is really disturbing. Any communication between an Advocate and his client, no matter what is the status of his client, is a privileged communication. Whatever he has communicated with the accused, cannot be forced to be divulged before any Investigating Officer,” the Court said.

Justice Sen made the observation while staying summons issued by the Railway Protection Force to an advocate named Agniva Sarkar.

The lawyer was representing accused in a case related to the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996. The summons stated that Sarkar is needed for recording his statement, after one of the accused alleged in his confessional statement that Sarkar assured them to continue with their activities, and that he would save them. 

After considering the case, the Court noted that, prima facie, it appears that the summons have been issued only to know the privileged details of the communication between Sarkar and his clients. 

“In the meantime, by way of interim measure, the impugned notice  dated 24.7.2025, issued by respondent No. 3, will remain stayed. It is also made clear that respondents will not issue any further notice of similar nature to the petitioner till disposal of this petition,” the Court ordered. 

Advocate Ajay Kumar Sah appeared for Sarkar. 

Additional Solicitor General Anil Kumar appeared for the Union of India. 

Advocate Abhijeet Kumar Singh represented the State of Jharkhand.

[Read Order]