Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 25,000 Cost on Police Officer for Violating Advocates’ Privileged Communication

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 expressed concern over an officer of the Matunga Police Station, Mumbai, who issued at least six notices to two advocates representing a senior citizen in a case related to an FIR lodged 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.

Court Questions Police Officer on Notices Issued to Advocates

The judges sought to know from the officer, who was present in court, exactly what information he wanted from the two lawyers.

"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 issue the notice?" the judges observed.

The bench also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation, which provides guidelines on this very issue.

Court Condemns Attempts to Intimidate Advocates

"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 highlighted that the police must be independent, impartial, and fair while investigating any case, and cannot be biased or guided by any party. "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.

Costs Imposed on Officer

The judges imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on the officer, to be paid from his own pocket. The amount is 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 had tendered an ‘unconditional apology’, Justice Mohite-Dere responded: "Why sorry? Damage is already done... We cannot pardon such an act."

Directions for Future Compliance

The bench directed the State to ensure that a copy of the Supreme Court judgment in Re: Summoning Advocates is forwarded to all levels of police to prevent the issuance of such notices in the future.

Case Title: Narshi Mulji Shah vs State of Maharashtra