Allahabad High Court: No Legal Privilege for In-House Counsels Under Sections 132, 134

• Recent judicial interpretations of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, risk weakening India's in-house legal profession.
• The Supreme Court's judgment in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025, delivered on October 31, 2025, has confirmed that in-house counsels generally do not enjoy the same legal privilege under Section 132 as independent advocates.
• The misinterpretation threatens to fragment the unified legislative objective behind these provisions, creating a distinction that Parliament never intended.
• Large multinational corporations rely on real-time legal advice for every commercial decision, making this issue critical for corporate compliance and liability.

A general counsel's role is to ensure the organization acts within the law, governed by legal ethics, professional standards, and statutory obligations.

India's in-house legal profession is facing a crisis due to recent judicial interpretations of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These provisions, designed to preserve confidentiality for obtaining legal advice, are being misinterpreted as creating competing categories of lawyers. The Supreme Court's judgment in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025, delivered on October 31, 2025, has confirmed that in-house counsels generally do not enjoy the same legal privilege under Section 132 as independent advocates, simply because they are salaried employees. This reasoning is flawed, as it confuses economic dependence with professional independence. A general counsel's role is to ensure the organization acts within the law, governed by legal ethics, professional standards, and statutory obligations.

Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, are complementary provisions aimed at preserving confidentiality for obtaining legal advice. One protects communications made to advocates, while the other protects legal advisers. These provisions were never intended to create competing categories of lawyers but rather promote a unified legislative objective: allowing individuals and organizations to seek legal advice freely and candidly without fear of disclosure. The present interpretation fragments this objective, creating a distinction that Parliament itself never intended.

The consequences of this misinterpretation extend far beyond evidentiary privilege. They threaten the future of India's legal profession and have significant corporate implications. Large multinational corporations rely on real-time legal advice for every commercial decision, from mergers and acquisitions to sanctions compliance and data privacy. If in-house counsels are denied legal privilege, these decisions may be made without adequate legal assessment, exposing companies to increased scrutiny and potential liability.

Lawyers advising Indian corporations on cross-border deals and complex transactions should be aware that recent judicial interpretations of Sections 132 and 134 may limit their clients' ability to claim legal privilege, potentially exposing them to compliance risks and increased scrutiny.

Source: Original reporting via The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration