Kerala High Court strongly rebukes Today (Mar 25) Njarakkal police for issuing a notice to an advocate representing custodial torture victims. Court says summoning lawyers like this violates their rights and professional confidentiality.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday strongly criticized the Njarakkal Police for summoning an advocate to the police station. The Court observed that this move appeared to be a way of threatening the lawyer, who had earlier filed a complaint against the police, alleging that his clients were tortured in custody.
The case was heard by Justice Kauser Edappagath, who questioned how the police could send a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to a lawyer. This section allows the police to issue a notice to someone suspected of an offence, but whose arrest is not required.
Justice Edappagath was clearly upset with the police and said,
“How is a counsel representing his clients made an accused in the crime? He is an officer like you, an officer of this Court. How can you issue a 35(3) notice to a lawyer who appeared for a client? If compensation is claimed, you will have to pay. This is an Article 21 violation. What power do you have?”
The Sub-Inspector of Police, who was personally present in court, informed the judge that the police had already withdrawn the notice sent to the lawyer. A formal letter confirming the withdrawal was submitted to the Court.
Despite the withdrawal, the Court indicated that it might soon issue a detailed order to protect advocates from such actions by the police in the future. Justice Edappagath emphasized that the police had no right to summon lawyers or force them to reveal private discussions between them and their clients.
The judge firmly said-
“You (police) have no authority to summon an advocate under Section 41A of the CrPC for disclosing privileged client communications. The procedure is wrong, and there must be justification for such actions … All communication with clients is privileged—why should an advocate disclose this?”
The case will be heard again on March 27, 2025.
The matter began with a petition filed by Kochi-based lawyer Ajikumar KK, who has been representing a couple accused of being Bangladeshi nationals using fake Aadhaar cards and voter IDs to claim Indian citizenship. The couple was arrested and has been in judicial custody since February 6, 2025.
ALSO READ: “Not Every Arrest Equals Custodial Torture,” Allahabad High Court Declares
After their arrest, serious allegations were raised. It was claimed that one of the accused was tortured while in police custody. Advocate Ajikumar filed a formal complaint before the Magistrate, alleging that the couple had been illegally detained and the husband tortured by the police.
After this complaint, the police first issued a notice under Section 94 of BNSS, asking the lawyer to produce documents related to the accused couple. However, Advocate Ajikumar had already submitted the documents to the Magistrate Court.
Later, the police sent another notice—this time under Section 35(3) of BNSS—summoning the advocate himself. The lawyer then approached the High Court to challenge this action.
He argued that under the Advocates Act, 1961, and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, every advocate has the right to practice law freely. He also pointed out that the Indian Evidence Act, Section 126, protects professional confidentiality between a lawyer and client. The police’s notice, he claimed, was an intentional act to threaten him and interfere with his legal duties.
The Court also took into account the advocate’s allegation that the police action was retaliation, since it came soon after his clients had filed a custodial torture complaint against the police.
Several lawyers represented Advocate Ajikumar in the High Court. They included Advocates S Rajeev, KR Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, Aromalunni MS, RK Rakesh, Nandana Babu T, Sreelakshmi PS, Nandida Sebastian, and Naveen P Mathew.
This case has raised strong concerns regarding the independence of advocates and the legal protection of privileged communication between lawyers and their clients. The Court’s forthcoming order is expected to set clear rules on how the police should deal with legal professionals in such sensitive situations.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Custodial Torture
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
