Delhi High Court on Summoning Advocates During Investigation: Professional Engagement Cannot Be Treated as Witness Role.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court stayed a CBI notice issued to an advocate directing him to appear for recording of statement and to produce certified documents during investigation. The Court held that summoning an advocate in his personal capacity merely because he communicated with the investigating officer on behalf of his client is contrary to settled law on advocate–client privilege. Treating a lawyer as a witness solely due to professional engagement was held to be impermissible and violative of the Supreme Court’s directions on summoning advocates during investigation.

Background:

• The petitioner, Sachin Bajpai, is an advocate representing Lord Mahavira Services India Pvt. Ltd., whose directors were accused in a CBI FIR alleging misuse of SIM cards for cyber-criminal activities.

• On 15.12.2025, acting in his professional capacity, the petitioner emailed documents to the Investigating Officer (IO) to facilitate the investigation after physical submission was allegedly refused.

• On 17.12.2025, one of the directors received interim protection from the Sessions Court.

• Subsequently, the CBI issued a notice dated 19.12.2025 to the petitioner under Sections 94 and 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), directing him:

1. to produce certified copies of documents already emailed, and
2. to appear personally for recording of his statement, on the premise that he was acquainted with the facts of the case.
3. • Aggrieved, the advocate approached the High Court seeking quashing and stay of the impugned notice.

Issues Before the Court

• Whether an advocate can be summoned for recording of statement merely for communicating and forwarding documents on behalf of a client.

• Whether such summons violate advocate–client privilege and Supreme Court guidelines.

• Whether documents could be sought from an advocate instead of directly from the accused company.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court noted that the petitioner’s emails clearly showed that he was acting solely in his professional capacity as an advocate representing his client.

• The impugned notice treated the advocate as a witness merely because he forwarded documents on client instructions, which is legally impermissible.

• Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in “Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues” (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320).

• The Supreme Court has categorically held that:

1. Advocates cannot be summoned to disclose details of a case or to depose merely because they represent an accused.
2. Summoning an advocate is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, with written satisfaction of a senior officer and explicit reference to statutory exceptions.
3. • The impugned notice failed to comply with these mandatory safeguards, particularly the requirement under para 67(1.2) of the Supreme Court judgment.
4. • Seeking documents from the advocate, instead of directly from the accused company or its directors, and calling the advocate for statement under Section 180 BNSS was held to be prima facie illegal.
5. • The Court emphasized that if advocates are routinely summoned as witnesses, it would seriously undermine:
6. advocate–client privilege, and
7. independence of the legal profession.

Decision

• The High Court stayed the operation of the impugned notice dated 19.12.2025 during pendency of the writ petition.

• The application seeking stay (CRL.M.A. 38214/2025) was allowed.

• The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing, and the IO was directed to remain present.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 94 & 180, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Production of documents and examination of persons.

• Sections 132–134, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Advocate–client privilege.

• Supreme Court decision: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320 – Guidelines on summoning advocates during investigation.

Case: Sachin Bajpai v. Union of India & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Decision: 20 December 2025

Writ Petition (Crl.) No.: W.P.(CRL) 4250 of 2025