Click the Play button to listen to article

An advocate has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment holding that a lawyer's office can be searched by law enforcement agencies if there is any prima facie involvement that the legal professional has committed any offence.

The High Court had thereby upheld the search and seizure conducted by GST Department at the office of Advocate Puneet Batra. Challenging this High Court's judgment, the lawyer has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court

Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and N Hariharan mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing.

Singh submitted that all his computers have been seized. Hariharan added that there was information on the devices in relation to other clients, and that the action would breach attorney-client privilege.

"If the entire data is accessed, I have got other clients also," Hariharan submitted. He added that the High Court's judgment was contrary to the Supreme Court's guidelines regarding summoning advocates over legal advice to clients.

The CJI agreed to list the matter.

The Delhi High Court had held that advocate-client privilege cannot be treated as an absolute bar against investigating a lawyer's own conduct where authorities place prima facie material suggesting that the lawyer may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and become involved in the affairs under investigation.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by advocate Puneet Batra, challenging a search conducted by the GST Department at the premises of his law firm, Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin. The authorities had seized his CPU and documents during the search.

Batra argued that the seized computer could contain privileged and confidential communications relating to his clients, including Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL), a gaming company for which he had provided legal and professional services. He contended that advocate-client privilege protected such material from being accessed by investigating authorities.

The GST Department, however, alleged that Batra's role went beyond that of a legal adviser and that he was actively involved in running MTPL's affairs. It relied on statements recorded during the investigation and other material in support of its allegation.

The High Court held that communications and material protected by advocate-client privilege are entitled to legal protection. However, such privilege cannot prevent an investigation into the advocate himself when there is prima facie material indicating that his own conduct and role may form part of the subject matter of the investigation.

The Court also clarified that the material relied upon by the GST authorities was being considered only to determine whether there was a basis to proceed with the investigation, and not to establish Batra's guilt or liability.

The Bench found that the search of Bass Legal, including Batra's cabin, was conducted pursuant to a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. The fact that Batra was an advocate did not, by itself, render the search unauthorised.

At the same time, the Court stressed that its ruling does not permit unrestricted searches of advocates' premises or dilute the protection available to genuinely privileged communications and confidential client material.

For further investigation, the GST authorities were directed to use the cloned copy of the data prepared pursuant to earlier court orders. They were specifically barred from examining data relating to Batra's other clients that had no connection with MTPL's affairs. Any such material that subsequently became relevant would require appropriate orders from the Court.



Tags: