Court Affirms Client-Advocate Privilege, Protects Independence of Legal Profession
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, has stayed a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) summoning Advocate Sachin Bajpai to appear as a witness in a cyber crime investigation involving Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited. The notice was challenged by Bajpai, who argued that the summons violated the principles of client-advocate privilege and undermined the independence of the legal profession.
The case revolves around an FIR registered by the CBI against Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited and its directors, alleging misuse of SIM cards for cyber-criminal activities. Advocate Sachin Bajpai, representing the accused company, had forwarded documents to the CBI in his professional capacity. The CBI subsequently issued a notice directing him to appear at its office with certified copies of these documents and to provide a statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguing before the court, Bajpai's counsel contended that the CBI's notice was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, which protect client-advocate privilege and the independence of the legal profession. The counsel highlighted that Bajpai acted solely in his professional capacity and had communicated with the CBI to facilitate the investigation on behalf of his client.
The Delhi High Court concurred with these arguments, emphasizing that summoning advocates as witnesses for merely forwarding documents or communicating on behalf of their clients violates the principles of client-advocate privilege. The court noted that such practices could have far-reaching consequences on the independence of the legal profession, as they might discourage advocates from fulfilling their professional duties.
The judgment cites the Supreme Court's decision in "Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues," which outlines the protocol for summoning advocates under specific exceptions. The court reaffirmed that the client-advocate privilege, as codified in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, obliges advocates not to disclose professional communications made in confidence unless covered by specific legal exceptions.
In light of these considerations, the Delhi High Court stayed the impugned notice issued to Bajpai, ensuring that he is not compelled to appear as a witness during the pendency of the writ petition. This decision underscores the court's commitment to safeguarding the sanctity of the legal profession and maintaining the confidentiality of client-advocate communications.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on December 23, 2025, where the respondent CBI is expected to provide a detailed reply explaining the rationale behind the issuance of the notice to Advocate Bajpai.
Bottom Line:
Advocates cannot be summoned as witnesses in investigations merely for forwarding documents or communicating on behalf of their clients, unless specific exceptions under the law are satisfied.
Statutory provision(s):
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 94, 179, 180
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 132
- Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) Sections 66, 66B, 66C, 66D
Sachin Bajpai v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824983
