Police Cannot Intimidate Lawyers, Force Them To Disclose Details Of Communication With Clients: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday while imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 on a police officer made it clear that the police cannot insist lawyers to disclose details of their 'privileged' communication with their clients. 

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil were irked to note that an officer of the Matunga Police Station in Mumbai, issued at least six notices to two advocates, representing a senior citizen man in a case related to an FIR lodged against him by his own son. 

"Where there is an offence, we understand but for client - advocate consultation or communication, you issuing such notices... We can't tolerate it... All these are privileged communications.. you cannot insist for such information..." Justice Mohite-Dere remarked, orally. 

The judges sought to know from the officer, who was present in the court, as to what he exactly wanted to know from the two lawyers, to whom he sent at least six such notices. 

"What information was he expecting from a lawyer who defended his client...Don't you all (Police) understand the boundary as to what is the role of an advocate...An advocate cannot be issued such notices asking them to spell out what their clients confided in them? You don't take pains to issue notices just for fun... We want to know why did he issued the notice?" the judges observed.

The judges even referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, wherein the top court laid down guidelines over the very issue.

"This is a matter of serious concern...If this goes like this, no advocate would be able to represent any person ever...This is indirectly an attempt to ensure that the advocate doesn't appear for the client... This is happening repeatedly... Like this, advocates won't accept briefs then...Your officer is trying to force the advocate... We are not going to pardon this act... You cannot intimidate any advocate..." Justice Mohite-Dere emphasised. 

The bench further underlined that the Police must be independent, impartial and fair while investigating any case and that the should be biased and guided or goaded by anybody as to how to investigate a given case...

"Parties may fight but police cannot take sides...Police cannot fall prey to tactics of the parties... You (Police) need to read between the lines and understand the undercurrents..." the judges said. 

Therefore, the judges imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on the officer and made it clear that the said amount will have to be paid by him through his own pocket. The amount has been ordered to be paid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG).

When additional public prosecutor Vitthal Konde-Deshmukh urged the judges not to impose costs as the officer has tendered his 'unconditional apology', Justice Mohite-Dere, responded, "Why sorry? Damage is already done... We cannot pardon such an act."

The judges further directed the State to ensure that copy of the judgment delivered by the top court in Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues is forwarded to all the levels of the Police to ensure no such notices are again issued in the future to any advocate.

Advocate Pratik Gaikwad represented the Petitioner.

Case Title: Narshi Mulji Shah vs State of Maharashtra