The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against advocates, holding that lawyers cannot face prosecution for acts performed during professional duties, observing that treating legal representation as criminal conspiracy would undermine the legal profession and citizens’ valuable right to effective legal assistance and defence.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that lawyers cannot be criminally prosecuted simply for carrying out their professional responsibilities. While quashing a criminal proceeding, the court said that initiating prosecution against advocates for acts done in the course of their professional duties would effectively spell the end of the legal profession.
In its decision, a two-judge bench led by Justices J. J. Munir and Tarun Saxena set aside the criminal case against an advocate accused of allegedly conspiring with his client in a GST matter.
The court observed,
“If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practice under the Advocates Act. It would, indirectly also, deprive the citizens of their right to the much valued right to legal assistance, because a person who practices the profession of law before defending his client, would be thinking about his own defence,”
The court, in its judgment dated May 21, further noted that prosecuting advocates for decisions taken while performing their professional duties strikes at the foundation of the legal system and the right to legal representation.
The bench also issued a caution against treating professional legal advice as a criminal conspiracy. It emphasized that holding advocates criminally liable for actions undertaken for clients would weaken the independence of the Bar and undermine citizens’ access to justice.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rules: Advocates Not Liable for False Statements in Affidavits They Attest
The case stemmed from the advocate’s role in filing appeals on behalf of his client challenging certain GST assessment orders. During the filing process, the advocate made the required pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax by using the Input Tax Credit available in the client’s electronic credit ledger. According to the advocate, this approach was legally permissible.
However, the GST authorities rejected this method. After the appeals were dismissed on maintainability grounds, the deputy commissioner lodged a first information report (FIR) alleging tax evasion and conspiracy.
The FIR named both the assessee and the advocate, Samarpan Jain, for adopting the method of pre-deposit. Jain then challenged the FIR before the High Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
