SC: Consumers Cannot Bear Power Plant Depreciation Costs When No Electricity Was Supplied  ||  Supreme Court: Para-Teachers’ Regularisation Depends On Educational Standards Set By States  ||  Bombay High Court: State Cannot Withhold Aid to Child Homes While Supporting Ladki Bahin Yojana  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Seek to Strike off Wife’s Defence over Unpaid Litigation Costs  ||  Calcutta HC: Bank Accounts Cannot Be Frozen Solely on Complaints Filed Via MHA Cybercrime Portal  ||  J&K&L HC: Unregistered Agreement to Sell Can be Considered For Assessing Possession at Interim Stage  ||  Raj HC: Cybercrime Cases Can't be Quashed Only on Compromise as They Impact Society at Large  ||  Gujarat High Court: Separate Compensation is Payable For Stillborn Child in Railway Accident Case  ||  Delhi HC: Hymen Rupture is Not Required to Prove Penetrative Sexual Assault under the POCSO Act  ||  Delhi HC: Organised Crime Groups Exploit Juveniles, Misuse Juvenile Justice Laws for Serious Crimes    

SC: In-House Counsel aren’t 'Advocates'; Their Employer Communications Lack S.132 BSA Protection - (03 Nov 2025)

CRIMINAL

Supreme Court held that communications between in-house counsels and employers are not protected under Section 132 BSA, as in-house counsels are not 'advocates' under the Advocates Act, 1961. However, communications with the company’s legal advisor remain protected under Section 134 BSA.

Tags : EMPLOYER   COMMUNICATIONS   PROTECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved