Skip to content
TodayPrism
Updated 2h agoPolitics

HC says no blanket immunity enjoyed by lawyers

Headline by Prism · from 1 report

The Delhi High Court ruled that advocate-client privilege does not grant lawyers blanket immunity from investigations when evidence suggests personal involvement in alleged wrongdoing.

1 outlet · 1 report · EnglishOne source so far

The record

Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.

  • The Delhi High Court upheld a search and seizure operation conducted by the GST department at a lawyer's office, ruling that advocate-client privilege is not an absolute barrier to investigation.
  • The court determined that authorities could proceed after establishing prima facie evidence that the lawyer may have acted beyond their role as a legal advisor in the case under scrutiny.
  • Authorities were instructed to handle the seized data with caution to protect unrelated client confidentiality while continuing their investigation.

What to watch next

  • Ongoing GST investigation into the advocate's alleged role in the company's affairs
  • Compliance with court-ordered data handling procedures to protect third-party client confidentiality

Who said what1

Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.

Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain

1 quote · 1 outlet

  • However, such privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against an investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself, where the respondents have placed prima facie material indicating that the petitioner may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and may have been involved in the affairs under investigation
    [1]The Times of India — Delhi2h agoOpen at the quote ↗
    In the article

    investigation, the client-advocate privilege can’t come in the way. “There can be no dispute that communications and material protected by advocate-client privilege are entitled to the protection recognised in law. However, such privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against an investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself, where the respondents have placed prima facie material indicating that the petitioner may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and may have been involved in the affairs under investigation ,” a bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain noted. The court dismissed the lawyer’s plea challenging the search and seizure at his office, observing that the search was carried out after a valid authorisation

Coverage1

1 report
English national1

All filed from India

Named India · IN-DL · Anil Khetarpal · Delhi High Court · GST Department · Shail Jain

Ask this story

Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.

← Today’s record

HC says no blanket immunity enjoyed by lawyers | Prism