Being an advocate does not place a person above the law, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held, while directing the police that any assistance sought from a lawyer in connection with an investigation must be sought strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has disposed of a plea by an advocate who alleged that he was being harassed and repeatedly summoned by the police in connection with an investigation, holding that while a lawyer, as an officer of the court, is expected to render lawful assistance to an investigating agency and cannot claim to be above the law merely by virtue of his profession, the police too must act strictly within the four corners of the law when seeking such assistance [Wasim Ahmad Reshi v. UT of J&K and Others].
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the order, balancing the advocate’s apprehension of harassment against the legitimate needs of a criminal investigation, and issuing a direction to protect the petitioner from any summons or requirement of presence except through due process.
The background
The petitioner, an advocate by profession, had drafted an affidavit on behalf of the alleged victim in a case registered at Police Station Ramban under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. In connection with that FIR, the police addressed a communication to the Station House Officer of another police station, requiring the petitioner to render assistance in the investigation. (Given that the underlying FIR concerns a child, LawChakra does not set out any detail that could identify the alleged victim.)
The petitioner’s case was that, under the garb of investigating the FIR, he was subjected to intimidation and harassment and was repeatedly called to the police station without adherence to due process. That contention was “strongly controverted” by counsel for the respondents, who submitted that the affidavit drafted by the petitioner itself indicated that the alleged victim, who had been reported missing, had been in contact with the petitioner, and that the police, on information received, had accordingly sought to enquire from him about the victim’s whereabouts.
‘Being an advocate does not place him above the law’
The Court declined to accept that the police had acted outside the law in seeking the petitioner’s assistance. On the facts, where the affidavit he had drafted suggested a link between him and a missing alleged victim, it could not be said that the investigating agency had acted dehors the process of law in seeking to enquire about her whereabouts.
The Court then made the observation at the heart of the order, on the duties that attach to a member of the legal profession:
“Merely because the petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above the law. Rather, being an officer of the Court and well versed with the legal position, he is expected to render such lawful assistance to the Investigating Agency as may be required so that the truth concerning the alleged offence is brought to light and, if an offence has indeed been committed, the offender is brought to justice.”
Such cooperation, the Court held, is in consonance with the administration of justice and the duties expected of an officer of the court. An advocate’s professional status, in other words, is not a shield against the ordinary obligation to assist a lawful investigation, particularly where the enquiry concerns a missing child.
‘But the police must act within the four corners of law’
The Court was equally firm on the other side of the balance. Even as it required the advocate to cooperate, it held that “the Police Agency is equally required to act strictly within the four corners of law,” and that while seeking any information or assistance from the petitioner in connection with the alleged victim or the investigation, the investigating agency “shall scrupulously adhere to the procedure established by law.”
The order thus refuses to treat the choice as binary: an advocate cannot resist a lawful enquiry by invoking his robe, but nor can the police convert a legitimate investigation into a means of pressuring or harassing him outside the bounds of procedure. Both propositions were held to operate together.
The order
Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that, since the filing of the petition, the police had stopped calling the petitioner, and that as on date the cause of action did not survive. He nonetheless sought a direction, to guard against any future apprehension of harassment, that the police not summon or require the petitioner’s presence except in accordance with due process.
Accepting that limited prayer, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction that, while proceeding with the investigation of the FIR, if the assistance or presence of the petitioner is required, “the same shall be sought strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.” The petition, along with connected applications, was disposed of in those terms.
Why the order matters
The order is a compact but useful statement of a recurring tension: the professional independence and dignity of advocates, and their equal subjection to the law when they are themselves witnesses to, or connected with, facts relevant to a criminal investigation. Lawyers frequently deal with clients and documents that become material to later inquiries, and the order draws a sensible line, an advocate is not immune from being asked to assist a lawful investigation, and cannot treat a summons as harassment simply because of his profession, but the agency seeking that assistance must do so through proper procedure and not use the investigation as a pretext for intimidation.
By framing the direction prospectively, requiring due process for any future summons rather than making any finding of past harassment, the Court gave the petitioner a measure of protection without impeding the ongoing investigation into a serious matter involving a child. It is a reminder that the safeguards against investigative overreach and the obligations of citizens, including lawyers, to cooperate with the criminal process are not in conflict but are meant to operate side by side, each disciplined by the requirement of adherence to law. The underlying investigation continues, and nothing in the order bears on the merits of the FIR.
Case Title: Wasim Ahmad Reshi v. UT of J&K and Others [WP(C) 1948/2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Date of Order: September 9, 2026