Bombay High Court: Police Cannot Intimidate Lawyers or Demand Client Communication
By Advocate Amarjeet Singh Panghal
Public Rights Action Network (PRAN)
The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling reaffirming that the police cannot intimidate lawyers or compel disclosure of privileged communications between advocates and their clients. The judgment strengthens the constitutional and statutory protection of the legal profession and reinforces the recent Supreme Court directions on safeguarding advocate–client confidentiality.
Background of the Case
In Narshi Mulji Shah v. State of Maharashtra, two advocates representing a senior citizen were repeatedly issued notices—at least six—by the Matunga Police Station. These notices sought details of conversations between the lawyers and their client, effectively demanding disclosure of privileged communication.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sandesh Patil held that such conduct was illegal, unjustified, and a direct attack on professional privilege.
Advocate–Client Privilege: A Non-Negotiable Protection
The Court reiterated that confidential communication between an advocate and a client is protected under:
✅ Section 126, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Prohibits advocates from disclosing professional communications without the client's express consent.
✅ Bar Council of India Rules
Recognise confidentiality as a core professional duty of advocates.
✅ Constitutional Right to Legal Representation
Clients must be able to consult lawyers freely without fear of disclosure to investigating agencies.
The Court emphasised that lawyers cannot be treated as witnesses to conversations or instructions received from clients.
Supreme Court Judgment Reaffirmed
The Bombay High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment:
In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues (2023)
The Supreme Court held that:
-
Police cannot summon practising advocates simply because they advised or represented a client.
-
Privileged communications are absolutely protected, except in narrowly defined statutory exceptions.
-
Any summons to an advocate must:
-
clearly specify the factual grounds for invoking an exception;
-
be approved in writing by a senior officer not below Superintendent of Police; and
-
remain subject to judicial review.
-
The Supreme Court stressed that misuse of police powers against advocates creates a chilling effect on the justice system.
The Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to circulate the Supreme Court judgment to all police officers, ensuring compliance across the force.
Personal Liability Fixed on Police Officer
Terming the repeated notices unlawful and harassing, the High Court ordered:
-
₹20,000 – to be paid personally by the investigating officer
-
₹5,000 – to be deposited with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
The Court refused to accept the officer’s apology, holding that police must respect the boundaries set by law and the independence of the legal profession.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling acts as a crucial safeguard for India’s justice system:
✅ Protects the independence of the legal profession
Advocates must work without fear of police pressure or coercion.
✅ Upholds the constitutional rule of law
Investigating agencies cannot override statutory protections or professional ethics.
✅ Preserves citizens’ right to honest legal advice
Clients must feel safe sharing information with their counsel.
✅ Ensures accountability
Personal costs discourage misuse of authority and unlawful intimidation.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling, read alongside the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, fortifies the shield of advocate–client confidentiality. No investigating agency can demand, coerce, or manipulate disclosure of privileged communication. The independence of lawyers is integral to the functioning of the justice system, and any attempt to undermine it will face strict judicial sanction.
✅ Citations
-
Narshi Mulji Shah v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3538 of 2024, Bombay High Court, Judgment dated 30.10.2024.
-
In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 08 of 2023, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 20.09.2023.
-
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 126 & 129.
-
Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Section II – Duties of an Advocate to the Client.
✅ About PRAN – Public Rights Action Network
Public Rights Action Network (PRAN) is an independent legal and policy initiative dedicated to strengthening access to justice, consumer rights, public health law, road safety, accountability, and legal awareness. PRAN promotes rights-based governance through legal research, community engagement, and evidence-based advocacy.
✅ About the Author
Advocate Amarjeet Singh Panghal, MA LLB, LLM
-
Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
-
Member, Supreme Court Bar Association
-
20+ years’ experience in criminal litigation, consumer protection, road safety, and public health law
-
Policy & legal consultant to leading civil society organisations
-
Author of multiple legal and public health reports, manuals, and advocacy documents
-
Founder, Public Rights Action Network (PRAN)
✅ Contact PRAN
📩 Email: publicrightaction@gmail.com
📱 Phone/WhatsApp: +91-99829-82686
🌐 Blog: https://publicrightaction.blogspot.com
🔗 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amarjeet-panghal
#PRAN #PublicRightsAction #LegalAwareness #AccessToJustice
#BombayHighCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #AdvocateClientPrivilege
#LegalProfession #RuleOfLaw #JusticeSystem #DueProcess
#PoliceAccountability #HumanRights #ConsumerRights
#ConstitutionalLaw #IndianLaw #CourtJudgment
#LegalRights #FairInvestigation #ProfessionalPrivilege
No comments:
Post a Comment