The Supreme Court on Wednesday took a serious view of Gujarat police issuing summons to an advocate for tendering legal advice to a client in a criminal case, cautioning that such action “would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal provision and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice”.
A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notices to the attorney-general, solicitor-general, Bar Council of India and lawyers' associations for assistance and in the interregnum stayed the summons issued to the advocate, Ashwinikumar Govindbhai Prajapati, by D.R. Patel, assistant commissioner of police, SC/ST cell-2, Ahmedabad city, on March 24.
The development comes against the backdrop of the furore early last week following the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for rendering legal advice to a corporate client concerning the employee stock option plan granted by M/Care Health Insurance Ltd. The summons was subsequently withdrawn by the ED.
Advocate Prajapati was summoned by the Ahmedabad Police in connection with the bail obtained by him for his client Panchal Prince Kumar Bhavani Shankar over a loan transaction in a case related to the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011, as well as under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Senior advocate Siddharth H. Dave contended that Prajapati was neither an accused nor a witness, and was discharging his role as an advocate of the accused. The FIR pertains to a dispute between the complainant and the accused, and the petitioner has no connection beyond his role as a lawyer for the accused.
Dave submitted that communications between an advocate and a client, which are privileged under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, cannot be the subject matter of any enquiry.
The bench said: "...Permitting the investigating agencies/prosecuting agency/police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates, who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal provision and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice."