Does Attorney Client Confidentiality end with Employment? Explore

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a practising advocate who had earlier worked as Legal Head at a Power Company. The matter came to be wrapped in a public interest litigation, involving questions pertaining to the confidentiality the petitioner owed as a former employee and as an advocate. The Supreme Court earlier had a somewhat different take in slightly different circumstances. Hence, let us scan through the applicable laws, how the MP High Court interpreted them, and what the Supreme Court ruled at the time. 

Attorney Client Confidentiality Under Indian Law

Attorney-client privilege, also called advocate client privilege, is codified in Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It replaced Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The provision protects professional communications between an advocate and a client, and its Explanation says the obligation continues after the professional service has ceased.  

In summary, the provision works as follows: 

• An advocate cannot disclose any communication made to them in the course and for the purpose of their employment, or the advice they gave, unless the client expressly consents.
• It bars an advocate from stating the contents or condition of any document they became acquainted with in the course of that employment.
• There are exceptions for communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, and for facts the advocate observed showing that a crime or fraud has been committed since the employment began.  
• The section also applies to interpreters and to the clerks or employees of advocates.

Sections 133 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deal with related matters, including the effect of a client’s consent. 

The Case Before the High Court

The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter came for hearing before a Single Judge Bench, who sought listing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia. The case was Writ Petition No. 14704 of 2025, Dr. Krishna Kumar Tripathi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The neutral citation is 2026:MPHC-JBP:75279. 

The petitioner worked as Legal Head in the office of a Power Company, and was in charge of land acquisition for the power plant area. He left the job on 30.8.2016. He stated that during his tenure, a list of beneficiaries under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy was signed by the S.D.O./Assistant Rehabilitation Officer. He alleged that officers later prepared a fresh list in which gross irregularities were committed. He said that the names of ineligible persons from the original list were shortlisted and verified persons who were minors in the earlier list as major. He said the number of beneficiaries in the later list increased by 300. He came to be aware of thsi information through an RTI in 2024. He approached the Collector's office with a complaint which was not acted upon for 6 months. Since the petitioner had no personal interest, the matter was taken up by the Single Judge of High Court as a Public Interest Litigation. 

MPHC on Advocate Client Confidentiality

The Division Bench said it could not believe that the petitioner had no personal interest in the matter. It noted that he had already projected himself as a complainant highlighting alleged illegality and irregularity in preparing the R&R Policy list. The MP High Court held that, even otherwise, the petitioner could not be permitted to bring his cause by way of public interest litigation. It gave these reasons: 

• He was himself the Legal Head in the office of the company and dealt with land acquisition matters.
• He was required to maintain secrecy of the facts and material he gathered while working with the company.
• He is now a practising advocate and “must understand the maintenance of secrecy between client and attorney.”

On advocate client privilege, the order states that an advocate owes an uncompromising duty of loyalty and confidentiality. It says an advocate is statutorily barred from disclosing communications made to them in the course and for the purpose of their employment by or on behalf of their client, as well as the advice given on them, unless there is express consent. The MP HIgh Court order expressly states that this obligation does not cease upon termination of employment and remains perpetual.  

The Bench added that the petitioner, being an ex-employee, is not supposed to highlight matters relating to his employer after leaving the service. It described his conduct as “highly objectionable and reprehensible.” 

The Court dismissed the writ petition as “devoid of substance.” It directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs. 20,000 with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority. 

Supreme Court Verdict on Attorney-Client Privilege for In-House Counsel

The Supreme Court has discussed the scope of advocate client confidentiality in the case of In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation Of Cases And Related Issues. vs State Of Gujarat (2025 CaseBase(SC) 1132).  

The matter arose from investigating agencies summoning advocates to obtain information about cases in which they represented accused persons or provided legal advice. In a connected criminal matter, an advocate representing an accused in a case registered in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, was summoned by the investigating officer under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The notice required the advocate to provide details about the facts and circumstances of the case. After the Gujarat High Court declined to interfere with the summons, the matter reached the Supreme Court. A reference was made concerning the circumstances in which investigating agencies could summon lawyers, prompting the Court to examine the scope of professional privilege and the safeguards needed to protect it. 

The Supreme Court held that full-time salaried in-house counsel cannot claim the client–advocate privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), for communications with their employer. However, it recognised a distinct, limited protection under Section 134. The Court reasoned that a full-time salaried in-house counsel's employment differs from independent legal practice. Although such counsel may advise on legal matters, their work is also connected with the employer's commercial and business strategies. The Apex Court concluded that merely advising an employer on legal affairs does not extend the same privilege that applies to professional communications with an independently practising advocate.