IN RE: SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES. Vs. IN RE: SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

(2.) The above matter arises out of a reference made by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in a Special Leave Petition filed against a notice issued against an Advocate under Sec. 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[for short, the BNSS]. Pursuant to an agreement relating to a loan and its breach, an FIR was lodged at the Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, Gujarat under various provisions of the BNSS read with the provisions of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused was arrested, and the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.33845 of 2025, an Advocate, filed a regular bail application for the accused before the learned Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad which was allowed. Subsequently, the impugned notice was issued, wherein after referring to the complaint and the accused arrayed, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the Investigating Officer[hereafter, the 'I.O.'], directed the appearance of the Advocate within three days from the date of receipt of notice so as to 'know true details of the facts and circumstances after making your inquiry' (sic). The petitioner Advocate moved the High Court which rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the summons and his non-cooperation resulted in the investigation being stalled. It was opined that there was no violation of fundamental rights, since the summons was served under Sec. 179 of the BNSS in the capacity of a witness by an officer conferred with the power to investigate. The learned Judges of this Court who heard the S.L.P. against the order of the High Court were of the opinion that two questions arise of utmost public importance, as to under what circumstances an investigating agency can directly issue a summons to question a counsel who is appearing for a party in a given case, especially under the rigour of Sec. 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023[for short, 'the BSA'] corresponding to Sec. 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(3.) The questions which among others, that arise, as emphasised in the reference order are as follows: -