The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi High Court judgment upholding the GST Department’s search of an advocate’s office and seizure of his computers, while questioning the non-disclosure of the reasons supporting the search.
The Supreme Court orally directed the GST Department not to take any coercive action against an advocate, including on a summons issued to him, until Monday, while adjourning his challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld a GST search and seizure at his law office. New Delhi: The Supreme Court has protected […]
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an advocate’s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment that upheld the GST department’s search of his law office and seizure of his computers. The High Court held that advocate-client privilege is not an absolute bar to investigating a lawyer’s own conduct where prima facie material shows he may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser. The petitioner contends the seizure of his devices breaches the privilege of his other clients.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an advocate’s challenge to a GST Department search of his cabin and the seizure of his computer, holding that privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam attaches to the client’s communications, not to the advocate personally, and cannot operate as an absolute bar where prima facie material indicates the advocate was himself involved in the affairs under investigation. The Court preserved safeguards for genuinely privileged and third-party client material.
