What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: Can Advocates Be Summoned by Agencies? What the Supreme Court Held

Context:

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the limits of investigative agencies in summoning lawyers and seeking disclosure of confidential communications between advocates and their clients. The verdict underscores the sanctity of attorney–client privilege, the constitutional protection of professional independence, and the balance between investigation and individual rights.

Background of the Case:

• The ruling came in response to multiple petitions challenging the frequent practice of police and enforcement agencies summoning advocatesduring investigations to reveal information shared by clients.
• The issue before the Court involved two crucial questions:
• Whether a lawyer can be summoned in connection with a case solely because of their professional engagement.
• If such a summons is issued, whether it should be subject to judicial oversight.
• The judgment was delivered by a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Attorney–Client Privilege:

• The foundation of the Court’s reasoning rests on Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which replaced Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section states that:
• An advocate is not permitted to disclose any communication made to them in the course of their professional employment by their client.
• This privilege continues even after the professional relationship ends.
• However, this protection does not apply if the communication is made in furtherance of an illegal act or if the advocate becomes aware of a crime or fraud committed since the engagement began.
• Thus, confidentiality is a qualified right, not an absolute one.

The Supreme Court’s Key Observations:

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Court ruled that compelling advocates to reveal privileged information would violate Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession)and Article 21 (right to privacy and dignity). It also noted that Section 132 of the BSA aligns with the constitutional safeguard against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
• No Automatic Immunity for Lawyers: While recognizing professional privilege, the Court clarified that lawyers are not immune from investigationif there is independent evidence linking them personally to a crime. The protection applies only when they act purely in their professional capacity.
• Judicial Oversight of Summons: Any summons issued to an advocate must now be subject to judicial scrutiny. Investigating officers must demonstrate that such a summons is essential and not a means of harassment or coercion.
• Balancebetween Rights and Investigation: The Court emphasized that while agencies have a legitimate interest in investigation; professional confidentiality is a cornerstone of the justice system. Without it, clients would hesitate to communicate freely, undermining fair trial rights.

Implications of the Judgment:

• Reinforces Rule of Law: Strengthens institutional trust in the legal system and ensures advocates can perform their duties without fear of reprisal.
• Protects Citizen Rights: Clients’ privacy and right to fair trial are safeguarded, enhancing confidence in the justice process.
• Checks Executive Overreach: Introduces judicial oversight to prevent investigative misuse against lawyers.
• Clarifies Scope of Legal Privilege: Establishes a balance between protections for genuine professional acts but accountability for criminal complicity.

Way Forward:

By aligning statutory privilege (Section 132 of BSA) with constitutional protections (Articles 19, 20, and 21), the Court has drawn clear boundaries for investigative agencies, ensuring that the pursuit of justice never tramples upon the confidentiality, dignity, and autonomy of the legal profession.

 

Editorial 2: An Indian Way for G2

Context:

The idea of a “G2”, a global order led jointly by the United States and China, has long intrigued strategic thinkers. The G2 concept envisaged the world’s two largest economies jointly managing global economic and political stability. However, the evolution of global geopolitics, coupled with the reassertion of middle powers like India, has significantly altered this equation.

Evolution of G2:

• The G2 idea emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
• It proposed that the U.S. and China, as the dominant economic powers, could cooperate to stabilise global trade and finance.
• The intention was to manage global capitalism collectively, the West representing the old industrial world and China symbolising the new manufacturingand financial power.
• However, this cooperation was never a genuine political partnership but a pragmatic arrangement born out of necessity.
• The U.S. viewed China’s economic rise as a tool to sustain the post-crisis economy, while China saw it as an opportunity to enhance its global legitimacy.

Shift in Global Equations:

• With the rise of Trump-era protectionism, U.S.-China relations transformed from cautious cooperation to overt rivalry.
• Tariffs, trade wars, and technology banssignalled the collapse of the G2 dream.
• The pandemic, followed by supply chain disruptionsand strategic decoupling, further entrenched the divide between the two giants.
• Meanwhile, middle powers including India, Japan, and the EU began recalibrating their foreign policies to navigate the emerging bipolarity.
• For India, which once believed that good relations with Washington would naturally lead to improved ties with other global powers, the time has come for a reassessment.

India’s Position and Strategic Outlook:

• India’s earlier foreign policy approach based on maintaining balanced relations with the U.S. and China simultaneously is increasingly untenable.
• The assumption that improved U.S.-China relations would stabilize the world economy has been replaced by the reality of sustained confrontation between them.
• In this context, India must carve out its own strategic path that safeguards national interests while engaging both powers on separate terms.
• With the U.S., India must continue deepening its cooperation on defense, technology, and democratic partnerships through frameworks such as QUAD, I2U2, and strategic dialogues.

Strategic autonomy of India in present global scenario:

• India should pursue issue-based partnershipsrather than bloc-based alignments.
• Economic Diplomacy: India should diversify trade and investment to reduce dependence on either the U.S. or China.
• Regional Leadership: By strengthening South-South cooperation, especially within the Global South, India can provide an alternative vision to the G2.
• Institutional Engagement: Revitalizing forums like G20, BRICS, and SCO ensures India remains a rule-shaper, not just a rule-taker.
• Technological Sovereignty: Promoting indigenous innovation and supply-chain resilience is key to sustaining autonomy amid U.S.-China tech rivalry.
• With China, India must manage competition and conflict pragmatically, balancing deterrence with diplomacy.

Way Forward:

The world today is not bipolar but “multi-nodal” with several centers of power shaping global outcomes. The notion of a U.S.-China G2 managing the world order is outdated. India, as a civilizational state and emerging economic powerhouse, must offer its own vision for equitable global governance one that values inclusivity, cooperation, and sovereignty.