The Delhi High Court ruled that GST officials must not open an advocate’s computer without consent, stressing confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and warning against breach of lawyers’ professional secrecy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a crucial judgment reinforcing the sanctity of attorney-client privilege, the Delhi High Court has held that the GST Department cannot open or access an advocate’s computer without his presence and consent. The ruling came in a case, decided on 9 September 2025, by a Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain.
ALSO READ: Bomb Scare at Delhi & Bombay High Courts After Threat Emails: Both Turn Out to Be Hoax
Background of the Case
Advocate Puneet Batra, a practising lawyer and member of multiple bar associations, challenged a search and seizure operation carried out at his office by the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, on 25 July 2025.
During the search, officials seized his CPU (1250 GB storage) and certain documents, including a partnership deed related to his parents’ firm, M/s Bass Legal LLP. Batra argued that the CPU contained sensitive client data unrelated to the case under investigation, and accessing it would cause a grave breach of confidentiality.
The GST Department, however, alleged that Batra was not merely representing his client, M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (a gaming company), but was actively involved in running its business. Several statements and investigation notes were submitted to the Court in a sealed envelope.
Also Read: BREAKING | Delhi High Court Evacuated After Bomb Threat, Judges Adjourn Hearings
Observations of the Court
The Court stressed the need to balance investigative powers with the protection of lawyers’ professional privilege:
“GST officials ought not to be permitted to open the CPU or computer of any advocate without his presence and consent, since the same could lead to serious breach of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege.”
The Court clarified that searches in an advocate’s office may only be conducted in exceptional circumstances, and even then, only in the presence of the lawyer.
The Court took note of Batra’s reliance on Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India (2022), where the Supreme Court criticised reliance on sealed covers without disclosure to affected parties.
Court’s Directions on CPU Examination
While refraining from commenting on Batra’s alleged involvement in his client’s business, the Bench laid down strict safeguards for examining the seized CPU:
- Presence of Parties:
- Examination to take place in the presence of Batra, along with two lawyers or one lawyer and a forensic expert on his behalf.
- Two senior officials from the Delhi High Court IT Department and a forensic expert from the GST Department will be present.
- Data Inspection:
- Officials may only determine:
- Last date of data access,
- Nature of files accessed on 25 July 2025,
- Whether any files were deleted, copied, or removed.
- The entire hard drive must be cloned, with one copy handed to Batra.
- Officials may only determine:
- Client-Related Data Only:
- With Batra’s assistance, only files relating to M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. and associated individuals/entities will be identified and supplied to the GST Department.
- Post-Inspection Safeguards:
- After the procedure, the CPU will be sealed and remain in GST custody, but cannot be reopened without further court orders.
- The GST Department must file a redacted affidavit outlining any allegations arising from the data, along with intended next steps.
- No Coercive Action:
- Until further orders, no coercive measures to be taken against Batra.
The case will now proceed with further hearings on 30 October 2025.
Case Title:
Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 & CM APPLs. 45387/2025 & 56648/2025
Read Order:
