The Delhi High Court stayed the CBI notice and cautioned against treating a lawyer as a witness for having communicated and forwarded documents on behalf of his client. (This image is generated using AI)
The Delhi High Court has stayed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) notice issued to an advocate, holding that lawyers discharging their professional duties cannot be treated as witnesses or any other person liable to be examined during an investigation.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing the plea filed by an advocate who was summoned by the CBI for communicating and forwarding documents on behalf of his client, a company, for the purpose of facilitating the investigation.
The court pointed out that prima facie, the CBI notice proceeded on treating the advocate as a “witness” in the investigation because he, on the instructions of his accused client, sent the documents sought by the investigation officer to facilitate the investigation.
The high court also highlighted that CBI issued the summons without considering that “his involvement with the matter arises solely from his ‘professional engagement as an advocate for the accused company”.
“If advocates are subjected to summons for recording of statements merely because they have addressed communications or forwarded documents to the I.O. in discharge of their professional duties, it would seriously prejudice the working of the advocates and the advocates sending communications on behalf of their clients,” the court said on December 20.
Pointing to the role of an advocate in representing a client, the court underlined that the advocates communicate with the investigating agency on behalf of the client and facilitate lawful cooperation with the investigation.
Such cooperation, the court observed, cannot be equated with that of a witness or any other person liable to be examined during investigation.
Reiterating previous orders of the apex court, the high court cautioned of the far-reaching consequences of summoning advocates as witnesses and stated that if allowed, the same would adversely affect the “independence” of the legal profession.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered by the CBI against a company, namely Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited and its directors, alleging misuse of SIM cards for cyber-criminal activities, some of which were alleged to have been issued by the said company.
It was placed on record that one of the directors of the accused company approached the petitioner seeking legal assistance in connection with the said FIR.
The advocate, in his professional capacity, sent emails to the investigation officer of the case enclosing some relevant documents pertaining to the investigation, which were sought from the accused.
The high court noted that the said notice was sent to the advocate on grounds of producing the certified documents, which were earlier forwarded by him through email and to appear before the investigating officer for recording his statement on the ground that he is allegedly “acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case”.
Curated by James Chen
