{"id":392762,"date":"2026-08-08T10:00:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-08T04:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=392762"},"modified":"2026-08-07T17:48:29","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T12:18:29","slug":"sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/","title":{"rendered":"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

If legal privilege becomes uncertain whenever advice originates from general counsels, corporations will inevitably reduce reliance on internal legal teams.<\/p>\n

India today stands at an extraordinary economic inflection point. As the country aspires to become a USD 30 trillion economy under Viksit Bharat @2047, Indian enterprises are becoming increasingly global, sophisticated and highly regulated. Cross-border acquisitions, international financing, technology partnerships, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) obligations, sanctions compliance, data governance and complex dispute resolution have transformed legal advice from an external support function into a strategic business necessity.<\/p>\n

At the centre of this transformation stands the modern general counsel. Yet, paradoxically, just as the role of the in-house legal profession has become indispensable, recent judicial interpretation of Sections 132<\/a> and 134<\/a><\/span>, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a> risks weakening the very institution upon which modern corporations increasingly depend. The consequences extend far beyond evidentiary privilege. They go to the future of India’s legal profession itself.<\/p>\n

The recent interpretation in a Suo Motu Writ Petition Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases & Related Issues, In re<\/span><\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> proceeds on the premise that an in-house counsel, being a salaried employee, cannot enjoy the same legal privilege as an independent advocate. This reasoning mistakes the source of remuneration for the nature of professional duty. A general counsel is appointed not to advance commercial interests irrespective of law, but precisely to ensure that the organisation acts within the law. Every opinion rendered by an in-house lawyer is governed by legal ethics, professional standards, and statutory obligations.<\/p>\n

A doctor employed by a hospital does not cease to be a doctor. A Chartered Accountant employed by a corporation does not lose professional responsibilities. Similarly, an advocate employed as a general counsel does not cease to perform legal functions merely because the salary originates from one employer. The interpretation therefore confuses economic dependence with professional independence — two concepts that have never been legally synonymous.<\/p>\n

Sections 132<\/a> and 134<\/a> are complementary provisions designed to preserve the confidentiality essential for obtaining legal advice. One protects communications made to advocates. The other protects legal advisers. Neither provision was intended to create competing categories of lawyers. Instead, both seek to promote one common objective — that individuals and organisations should be able to seek legal advice freely and candidly without fear that such communications will later be compelled into disclosure. The present interpretation unfortunately fragments this unified legislative objective and creates a distinction which Parliament itself never intended.<\/p>\n

Attorney-client privilege has never been a privilege of lawyers. It belongs to the client. Its purpose is to encourage complete disclosure so that clients receive accurate legal advice. When a corporation consults its general counsel, the corporation is seeking legal advice no differently than when it consults an external law firm. The client remains identical. The legal question remains identical. The public policy remains identical. Only the employment relationship changes. Allowing this single factor to determine privilege undermines the very rationale behind legal professional privilege.<\/p>\n

The corporate consequences could be severe<\/p>\n

Large multinational corporations operate on real-time legal advice. Every commercial decision requires continuous legal assessment of mergers and acquisitions; financing; sanctions compliance; anti-corruption compliance; competition law; data privacy; ESG reporting; securities regulation; intellectual property; employment law; and international arbitration.<\/p>\n

These decisions cannot practically be outsourced every hour of every day. General counsels exist because business requires continuous legal guidance embedded within commercial decision-making. If confidential communications with in-house counsel become legally vulnerable, corporations will naturally alter their behaviour. Sensitive discussions will increasingly migrate outside the organisation. External legal opinions will become the preferred option — not because they are necessarily better, but because they enjoy greater certainty regarding privilege. The result will be less efficient governance and significantly higher costs.<\/p>\n

The economic cost will be enormous<\/p>\n

Legal expenditure constitutes a substantial compliance cost for every major corporation. General counsels exist partly because they enable organisations to obtain high-quality legal advice internally, reducing dependence on external firms. If every strategic discussion requires engagement of outside counsel merely to preserve privilege then legal expenditure will increase dramatically; transaction costs will rise; compliance costs will multiply; decision-making will slow considerably; and India’s ease of doing business will suffer.<\/p>\n

Ironically, a doctrine intended to define privilege could substantially increase the cost of legal compliance across the economy.<\/p>\n

The greatest casualty will be the in-house legal profession<\/p>\n

The long-term implications for the profession itself may be even more profound. If legal privilege becomes uncertain whenever advice originates from general counsels, corporations will inevitably reduce reliance on internal legal teams.<\/p>\n

The profession risks being transformed from trusted legal adviser to merely an internal coordinator of external counsel. Such an outcome would represent one of the greatest setbacks in the evolution of India’s legal services ecosystem.<\/p>\n

The problem becomes even more acute for multinational corporations. Global corporations operate across jurisdictions where in-house privilege is recognised. Legal advice often flows seamlessly between teams in New York, London, Singapore, Sydney, Dubai and Mumbai. If India adopts a materially different approach, multinational companies may increasingly centralise strategic legal advice outside India. Indian general counsels may be excluded from sensitive cross-border communications.<\/p>\n

Regional legal headquarters may migrate elsewhere. This would diminish India’s attractiveness as a destination for global legal leadership and high-value corporate decision-making.<\/p>\n

Why civil law jurisprudence cannot override India’s common law tradition<\/p>\n

One of the most significant concerns is the reliance upon civil law jurisprudence, particularly the European Court of Justice decision in Akzo Nobel. That decision emerged within a fundamentally different legal tradition. Civil law systems historically adopt narrower concepts of attorney-client privilege and greater regulatory supervision over legal communications. India, however, inherited the common law tradition.<\/p>\n

In every major common law jurisdiction, privilege has evolved through principles fundamentally different from those governing continental Europe. Courts across the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore, Canada and numerous Commonwealth jurisdictions have consistently recognised that privilege attaches to legal advice provided by in-house counsel acting in their professional legal capacity.<\/p>\n

These jurisdictions recognise that professional independence flows from ethical obligations; employment status does not determine privilege; legal advice remains legal advice irrespective of the employer.<\/p>\n

The common law has therefore adopted a functional approach rather than an employment-based approach. India’s jurisprudence has traditionally evolved through common law reasoning.<\/p>\n

Departing from this settled international common law consensus without compelling statutory language creates uncertainty precisely when India seeks greater integration with global commerce.<\/p>\n

India’s legal ecosystem cannot afford this regression<\/p>\n

India seeks to become a global arbitration hub. India seeks to attract multinational headquarters and become a preferred investment destination as well as export legal services. None of these ambitions can comfortably coexist with a legal framework that weakens the institutional role of general counsels. Modern corporate governance increasingly depends upon strong internal legal departments capable of providing independent, confidential and commercially informed legal advice. Weakening privilege weakens governance itself.<\/p>\n

The way forward<\/p>\n

The issue is not whether external lawyers should enjoy privilege. They unquestionably should. The question is whether the same protection should extend to qualified advocates serving as general counsels when they are acting in their legal capacity. The answer should be equally clear.<\/p>\n

The appropriate test is not — “Who pays the lawyer?”. The correct test is — “Was the lawyer acting in a professional legal capacity?”.<\/p>\n

That functional approach reflects commercial reality, international common law, sound public policy and the legislative purpose underlying Sections 132<\/a> and 134<\/a>. The present interpretation may have been intended to clarify privilege. Its unintended consequence, however, could be the gradual erosion of India’s in-house legal profession. The stakes extend well beyond one evidentiary provision. They concern the future of corporate governance, the competitiveness of Indian business, the growth of India’s legal services market and the evolution of the legal profession itself. As India builds the legal architecture required for a developed economy, its jurisprudence must strengthen — not diminish — the role of general counsels.<\/p>\n

The future of India’s legal ecosystem depends not upon drawing artificial distinctions between advocates inside and outside corporations, but upon recognising that professional independence is defined by ethical duty, legal responsibility and the nature of the advice rendered — not by the source of one’s salary.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Managing Director & Group General Counsel, Essar Group; Co-founder, General Counsels’ Association of India. Author can be reached at: sanjeevgemawat12@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2026) 2 SCC 233<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Dr Sanjeev Gemawat*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":392763,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[95361,111815,111264,95360,95366,111814],"class_list":["post-392762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-attorney-client-privilege-india","tag-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-corporate-lawyers","tag-general-counsel-legal-privilege","tag-in-house-counsel-privilege-india","tag-legal-professional-privilege-india","tag-sections-132-and-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam"],"yoast_head":"\nSections 132 & 134 BSA and In-House Legal Privilege | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"An analysis of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examining legal privilege, in-house counsel, and their impact on corporate governance in India.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Unintended Demise of India\u2019s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"An analysis of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examining legal privilege, in-house counsel, and their impact on corporate governance in India.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-08T04:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-08T04:30:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1395,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Attorney-client privilege India\",\"Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam corporate lawyers\",\"General Counsel legal privilege\",\"In-house counsel privilege India\",\"Legal professional privilege India\",\"Sections 132 and 134 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Op Eds\",\"OP. ED.\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/\",\"name\":\"Sections 132 & 134 BSA and In-House Legal Privilege | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-08T04:30:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"An analysis of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examining legal privilege, in-house counsel, and their impact on corporate governance in India.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Sections 132 and 134 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/08\\\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sections 132 & 134 BSA and In-House Legal Privilege | SCC Times","description":"An analysis of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examining legal privilege, in-house counsel, and their impact on corporate governance in India.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Unintended Demise of India\u2019s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration","og_description":"An analysis of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examining legal privilege, in-house counsel, and their impact on corporate governance in India.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-08-08T04:30:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration","datePublished":"2026-08-08T04:30:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/"},"wordCount":1395,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp","keywords":["Attorney-client privilege India","Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam corporate lawyers","General Counsel legal privilege","In-house counsel privilege India","Legal professional privilege India","Sections 132 and 134 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam"],"articleSection":["Op Eds","OP. ED."],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/","name":"Sections 132 & 134 BSA and In-House Legal Privilege | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-08T04:30:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"An analysis of Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, examining legal privilege, in-house counsel, and their impact on corporate governance in India.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Sections 132 and 134 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/08\/sections-132-134-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-in-house-counsel\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Unintended Demise of India’s In-House Legal Profession: Why the Interpretation of Sections 132 and 134 Requires Reconsideration"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Sections-132-and-134-Bharatiya-Sakshya-Adhiniyam.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=392762"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":392766,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392762\/revisions\/392766"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/392763"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=392762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=392762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}