SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

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