The Delhi High Court has stayed a CBI summons issued to advocate Sachin Bajpai, emphasizing that lawyers cannot be treated as suspects merely for representing their clients. The ruling reinforces professional independence and legal protections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a notable decision safeguarding the independence of lawyers, the Delhi High Court on Saturday stayed a summons issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to an advocate who had sent an email to the agency on behalf of his client while performing his professional duties. The Court highlighted that allowing such actions could seriously hinder the functioning of legal professionals.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, while hearing a case, summoned the investigating officer (IO) to appear in Court, expressing concern over the issuance of the notice.
“I am staying this. Please ask the IO to be present in Court… This is not acceptable. If such practices continue, lawyers will find it impossible to work,”
the Court said.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose after the CBI issued a notice dated December 19 to advocate Sachin Bajpai under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The notice required him to appear before the investigating officer, produce certified documents, and give a statement.
The FIR in question involves alleged violations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited and its directors.
The plea stated that when a staff member of the company tried to submit documents to the CBI in compliance with the investigation, he was detained for several hours and allegedly mistreated.
In response, on December 15, advocate Bajpai sent an email to the CBI attaching relevant documents, strictly following his client’s instructions and in line with his professional duties. Two days later, he successfully secured anticipatory bail for his client.
Despite these facts, on December 19, the IO issued a summons asking Bajpai to appear before the agency and produce documents.
Bajpai challenged the notice in the High Court, arguing that it was arbitrary and interfered with the administration of justice. He warned that if such summonses were allowed, it could set a dangerous precedent where lawyers are penalized for performing their duties for clients.
Court’s Observations
The High Court, while staying the summons, emphasized that lawyers cannot be treated as suspects or coerced merely for representing their clients. Summoning the investigating officer, the Court stressed that such practices undermine the legal system and lawyer-client privilege.
The matter will be heard further on December 23.
Appearance:
For petitioner Sachin Bajpai: Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Sandeep Sharma, along with advocates Nitesh Mehra, Gaurav Bhardwaj, Ashish Sareen, Kumar Kshitij, Anurag Mishra, Adarsh Ratnesh, Somi Sharma and Utkarsh Dwivedi
The CBI: Advocate Ripu Daman Bhardwaj.
Case Title:
Sachin Bajpai v Union of India & Ors
