Accountability of Advocates in Professional Advice: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan

By Advocate Abhishek Jat

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4292 of 2024, decided on 15 January 2025), has provided crucial clarity on the professional accountability of advocates, particularly in relation to advice rendered informally. The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, holds particular importance in an era where mobile conversations, WhatsApp messages, and other digital communications frequently come under judicial scrutiny.

The central issue before the Court was whether an advocate could be exposed to criminal liability on the basis of advice given casually over a phone call, when such advice subsequently emerged as incriminating material in a criminal investigation. The appellant had argued that as a member of the Bar, his communication with a client was privileged and immune from prosecution. The Court, however, rejected this contention, emphasizing that professional status cannot be invoked as a blanket shield against criminal accountability.

In its reasoning, the Court underlined three important principles. First, the legal profession does not confer immunity from the reach of criminal law. Advocates are officers of the court, but their duties are bounded by both legal and ethical obligations. Second, the Court clarified that if professional advice is shown to be connected to a criminal conspiracy or unlawful act, such advice may legitimately form part of the prosecution’s evidence, regardless of whether it was given in a formal consultation or in a casual conversation over a mobile phone. Third, the Court revisited the doctrine of privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the privilege is not absolute and does not extend to communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose.

The judgment has far-reaching implications for practicing lawyers. It reinforces the necessity of exercising caution while advising clients, particularly in informal modes of communication where remarks may later be construed as aiding or abetting illegality. The decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of documenting advice responsibly, maintaining ethical clarity, and recognizing the limited scope of privilege in law. For law students and young practitioners, the ruling is a significant lesson in the balance between professional independence and accountability.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan underscores that the nobility of the legal profession is preserved only when legal advice serves the cause of justice rather than undermines it. Privilege is designed to protect lawful and bona fide communications, not to shelter advice that facilitates criminal conduct. By clarifying the limits of professional privilege and affirming the principle of accountability, the Supreme Court has once again reiterated that the integrity of the legal profession lies not in immunity from the law, but in its unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational and academic purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified legal professional for advice regarding specific legal issues or cases. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official position of any organization or institution.
Copyright Notice: © 2025 Abhishek Jat, Advocate. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author. Unauthorized use or reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action.