Prayagraj, May 27 The Allahabad High Court has held that lawyers cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution merely for performing their professional duties.
Quashing a criminal proceeding, the court observed that prosecuting advocates for professional acts means the end of the bar (profession of law).
Making these observations, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena quashed a criminal proceeding against an advocate who is accused of conspiring with his client in a GST case.
"If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practice under the Advocates Act. It would, indirectly also, deprive the citizens of their right to the much valued right to legal assistance, because a person who practices the profession of law before defending his client, would be thinking about his own defence," observed the court.
The court in its judgement dated May 21 also noted that prosecuting advocates for decisions taken in the course of their professional duties strikes at the root of the legal system and the right to legal representation.
The court cautioned against equating professional legal advice with criminal conspiracy. It underscored that holding lawyers liable for actions taken on behalf of clients would undermine both the independence of the Bar and citizens' access to justice.
The case arose from the advocate's role in filing certain appeals on behalf of his client against some GST assessment orders.
While filing the appeals, a mandatory pre-deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax was made by utilising the Input Tax Credit available in the client's electronic credit ledger. The lawyer believed this method was legally permissible.
The GST authorities, however, disagreed with this approach. After the appeals were dismissed on maintainability grounds, the deputy commissioner lodged a first information report (FIR) alleging tax evasion and conspiracy.
The FIR named not only the assessee but also his advocate for adopting the above method of pre-deposit. The advocate, Samarpan Jain, challenged this before the high court.
