Being An Advocate Does Not Place One Above Law, No Immunity From Lawful Police Inquiry: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that merely because a person is an advocate, he cannot claim immunity from lawful inquiries by the police, observing that, as an officer of the Court and a person well versed with the law, an advocate is expected to render lawful assistance to an investigating agency when required for bringing the truth to light.
Justice Sanjay Parihar made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by advocate Wasim Ahmad Reshi, who had alleged that he was being intimidated and harassed by the police in connection with the investigation of an FIR registered at Police Station Ramban.
The Court, at the same time, underscored that the obligation to cooperate with an investigation does not dilute the legal safeguards applicable to the person being approached. It directed the investigating agency to act strictly within the four corners of law while seeking information or assistance from the petitioner.
The case arose out of FIR registered at Police Station Ramban for offences under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4/5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). In connection with the investigation, Police Station Ramban had, addressed a communication to the SHO, Police Station Magam, requiring the petitioner to assist in the investigation.
The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, had drafted an affidavit on behalf of the alleged victim in the case. The petitioner alleged that under the guise of investigating the FIR, he was subjected to intimidation and harassment and was repeatedly called to the police station without adherence to due process.
The respondents, however, strongly disputed the allegation. Their case was that the affidavit drafted by the petitioner indicated that the alleged victim, who had been reported missing and in respect of whom the FIR was registered, had been in contact with him. It was against this background that the police, after receiving information from Police Station Ramban, sought to enquire from the petitioner regarding the whereabouts of the alleged victim.
'Merely because petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above law'
Rejecting the contention that the police had acted outside the legal process in the circumstances, the Court observed, “Merely because the petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above the law.”
Justice Parihar emphasised that an advocate, being an officer of the Court and being well versed with the legal position, is expected to provide lawful assistance to the investigating agency when such assistance is required to ascertain the truth concerning an alleged offence.
It further observed that such cooperation is consistent with the administration of justice and with the duties expected of an officer of the Court. However, the Court made it equally clear that the police are themselves bound by the law.
“At the same time, the Police Agency is equally required to act strictly within the four corners of law,”, the Court said, adding that while seeking information or assistance from the petitioner concerning the alleged victim or the investigation, the investigating agency must “scrupulously adhere to the procedure established by law.”
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the writ petition was filed, the police agency had stopped calling him. He fairly conceded that, as on the date of hearing, the immediate cause of action no longer survived. He nevertheless sought a direction to ensure that the petitioner was not subjected to harassment in future and that his presence was not required except in accordance with due process of law.
Taking note of the circumstances, the High Court disposed of the petition with a specific direction that if the petitioner's assistance or presence is required during the investigation of FIR , the same shall be sought strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Case Title: Wasim Ahmad Reshi v. UT of J&K & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326