Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

SCBA Concerned Over Search At Delhi Lawyer's Premises

Posted in: Judiciary
Wed, Jan 20, 21, 13:45, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4299
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.

It cannot be lightly dismissed that none other than the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases. This was published in 'The Times of India' newspaper dated December 29, 2020 as also in other leading newspapers. This is really condemnable as lawyer is an officer of the court and it cannot be lightly dismissed as none other than the Supreme Court Bar Association has taken serious note of it.

To put things in perspective, it is pointed out that regarding the search at advocate Mehmood Pracha's office premises, the SCBA said that such actions were intimidatory and designed to abuse the due process by coercing an advocate to succumb to police threats and methods unheard of in legal annals. How can such a search at the office premises of an advocate who is an officer of the court be justified? This alone explains why even SCBA has taken a very serious note of it.

To be sure, the SCBA said in a statement that,:
Such a search/seizure is in the teeth of the specific provisions of law which recognize the client lawyer relationship and protects all correspondence between the advocate and his client. It would be useful to go through Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act which all those in the legal field are fully well-versed with. For starters, it must be mentioned here that Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act states that:

126. Professional communication
No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure:

  1. Any such communication made in furtherance of any [illegal] purpose.
  2. Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.

It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, [pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf on his client.
Explanation - The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased.

Truth be told, the SCBA also said explicitly, elegantly and effectively that, Encroachment on the rights of an advocate by the police violates the rights of the accused to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21, and the protection against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, jeopardising the rights of the client to a free trial. Who can deny or dispute this? The police has a lot of introspection to do on what it has done.

Going forward, the SCBA also pointed out that:
The seizures of confidential information which is protected by lawyer-client privilege, in a search conducted by the very police authorities who are prosecuting the lawyer's clients, will prejudicially affect the rights and guarantees of the accused. Again who can deny or dispute this? What the top court Bar Association vis-à-vis the Supreme Court Bar Association has stated so rightly cannot be brushed aside or swept under the carpet!

It must be pointed out here that the Special Cell of the Delhi Police had searched the Nizamuddin East office of lawyer Mahmood Pracha. As we all know or at least many of us those who are in legal field know fully well that Pracha's firm Legal Axis is defending several persons accused in different cases related to the Delhi riots in February 2020 – these cases include those in which sections of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have been invoked. It must be informed here that in August 2020, the Delhi police had told a Delhi court that Pracha had forged documents and instigated a man to depose falsely in a case related to the riots.

According to advocate Mahmood Pracha's associate, advocate Digvijay Singh, the law firm is handling nearly 150 riot related cases, including one filed against student activist Gulfisha Fatima, who is in judicial custody in a UAPA case. Pracha was at pains to point out that, My phone has been seized. I am being threatened. I have told them they can take things from my computers, from my office and even my home. At the end of the day, the Constitution will win. It is not so weak....We will ensure that each and every riot victim gets justice.

On their part, Additional PRO (Delhi Police) Anil Mittal said that:
During the course of a bail matter pertaining to an accused in the Northeast Delhi riots, use of a forged notary stamp and creation of allegedly false/manipulated evidence at the hands of certain members of the Bar was noticed. The Special Court had observed that this required thorough investigation. Pursuant to this, a criminal case under appropriate sections of law was registered and investigation was taken up.

Furthermore, Mittal also said that:
During the course of investigation, search warrants to look for electronic and other evidence from the premises of two members of the Bar were obtained from the Court and the same are being executed in a professional manner at one location in Nizamuddin and another at Yamuna Vihar.

Meanwhile, many senior lawyers continued to criticize the police action against the lawyers. This included Delhi government's Senior Standing Counsel (Criminal) Rahul Mehra who tweeted that, I may have professional differences with Mr Mahmood Pracha and may agree to disagree with him most of the time but for an office of a lawyer to be raided like this is highly condemnable. Expecting good sense to prevail sooner rather than later. Another high profile senior Supreme Court lawyer and eminent Congress leader Manish Tewari minced no words to say that he was deeply disturbed by the search conducted at Pracha's offices and asked the Bar Council to take up this arbitrary harassment. So this is a very serious issue and must be taken most seriously in the right earnest.

Adding more to it, the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum has also written to the President of Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), Mohit Mathur, expressing deep concerns over investigating agency arraigning lawyers as accused in criminal cases. The Forum states that on the face of it, the proceedings initiated against lawyers are ostensibly independent of the matters being handled by them.

However, the pattern emerging from all such instances, where lawyers are being targeted, is hard to ignore. The statement by the Forum minces no words to state unequivocally that, Raids in the office of Mr. Mahmood Pracha, Advocate is the latest example of such intimation by the Delhi Police. Mr. Pracha is representing several accused persons in the recent riot cases in Delhi. The recent trend indicates that there are other lawyers too who are being intimidated and discouraged from representing their clients in these cases. However, this is also a larger issue that goes beyond the riots case, wherein lawyers who are vocal about defending civil liberties are being systematically targeted.

Not just this, even the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) has written to the Union Home Minister – Amit Shah seeking immediate action in connection with the police raid at his office. The letter reads as: We notice anguish and anger amongst the legal community, primarily because it goes to the very root and independent discharge of responsibility by an Advocate, as provided under the Constitution of India being integral part of the Justice Dispensation System, the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.

The letter has been signed by Vice Chairman of BCD – Himal Akhtar; Member of BCD – Rajiv Khosla and former Chairman – KC Mittal also. Without going into the factual matrix of the case, the BCD has highlighted Sections 126 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides for privileges to the legal practitioners in connection with communication with clients.

The communication states that, We think the provisions of law cannot be ignored. The letter further states that there is an understanding that in case of any case against an advocate, the representatives of the Bar Association/Bar Council would be informed and taken into confidence by the Delhi Police. The letter reads remarkably as: This broader understanding is to maintain the harmony and cordiality between the two wings of the justice delivery system.

This seems to have not been followed in the present case. While we do not want to go into various aspects of the matter, apparently the action of Delhi Police falls short on these aspects, which is a very serious matter as far as the legal community is concerned.

It again cannot be lightly dismissed that former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising condemned the raid at Pracha's office saying that such actions will lead to a denial of justice to various accused and victims in the Delhi riots cases who are certainly entitled to a free and fair trial. It cannot be denied that if lawyers are intimidated then their morale is bound to get affected no matter how hard they may deny!

It must be mentioned here that Pracha is representing pro bono nearly 100 people in the 2020 Delhi riots case. Pracha mentioned that the raid that began at noon ended at 3 am the other day. Pracha alleged that the police assaulted and intimidated him. Pracha also said that, The search ended at 3 am and they could not find anything. Even though police are alleging misconduct on our behalf, they recorded everything on video and that video will show to the world what happened.

It cannot be questioned that Pracha rightly pressed for a court-monitored probe of the FIR against him pointing out that the FIR was registered way back in August but the raid was conducted now with an ulterior design to deter him from appearing in riots cases. At a press conference held at the Press Club, the riot victims while coming out in open support of Pracha also claimed that the police threatened them to withdraw complaints and did not file cases.

Sahil Parvez whose father was allegedly shot dead by rioters said that, Police officials and authorities did not listen to me while preparing medico-legal certificates or first information reports. Even though I named the rioters, no action was taken against them. Some were arrested and later released on bail. During this time, I was constantly threatened to withdraw my case. Delhi Police spokesperson Anil Mittal was quick to retort that, All such allegations are false and baseless. Investigation into cases is being done solely on merits.

Mohammad Nasir Khan who was shot at by rioters and lost an eye at the violence said that he received no legal help by the police in the days following the riots. Khan who is a resident of north Ghonda said that, I had read about Pracha who took up cases pro bono of marginalized people from minority, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe communities. However, after bringing him on board, we started getting threats that we should withdraw our complaints or get another lawyer. It must be mentioned here that communal vioplence had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 over Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) between supporters and protesters which left at least 53 people dead and around 400 injured.

Speaking to journalists after the hearing, Pracha said that the police have displayed an egregious example of lawlessness and illegalities under the guise of investigation into a forgery FIR registered against unknown persons. He further said that, I am not even aware if I have been named as an accused or not in this FIR. It has been almost four months since registration of the FIR and there is no chargesheet till date. They took away details of all the cases and clients, which are privileged communication between a lawyer and his clients. If this is not a witch-hunt what else can be? I was assaulted but I am now being told that another FIR is lodged against me at the instance of the raiding team. This is truly most despicable! If this can happen to such an eminent lawyer what will happen to a common man? It is anybody's guess that a common man is at the complete mercy of the police who can extort money among other things and harass him/her to no end!

It must be reiterated: What has happened with such an eminent lawyer like Mahmood Pracha is most despicable, deplorable, dangerous and disastrous to say the least. Pracha had rightly said that, Bar is the last bastion. We must all rise to the occasion and save attacks on our profession and ultimately the Constitution of India. Every lawyer must feel concerned over what has happened with him as it is quite a disturbing trend and we in frequent intervals keep hearing such untoward incidents. An impartial enquiry must be conducted and those who are guilty must be proceeded with in accordance with law.

It cannot be lightly dismissed that senior lawyers like Prashant Bhushan, Chander Uday Singh and former Bombay High Court Judge BG Kolse Patil while denouncing the most intimidating search at Pracha's office remarked that, Delhi police searches at advocate Mehmood Pracha's office compromises the entire criminal justice system and rights of the accused. Over 1200 lawyers have also signed a petition demanding strict action against erring police officers as well as the Judge who allowed the searches. Lawyer Bahadur Abhas Naqvi who is an aide of Pracha said that they plan to take out a march from the High Court to Supreme Court on January 22 to hand over the petition to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde. Chander Uday Singh minced no words to say that, The police action compromises the entire criminal justice system and rights of the accused.

The search warrant also goes against the fundamental principles of the justice system. The communication between a client and a lawyer is completely privileged. This is one of the pillars of the judicial system. Eminent Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan too said that the searches, carried out on December 24, raise serious questions. He said that, Pracha is a prominent lawyer who has been defending several persons accused in the February 2020 communal riots in Delhi. He has also been instrumental in getting FIRs registered against the Delhi Police for their malafide investigation into the riots.

On the contrary, police allege that Pracha had forged documents and instigated one Irshad Ali to depose falsely in a case related to the riots. Truth must come out. Questioning the search warrant in the case, Bhushan added that instead of searches at his residence, Pracha could have been asked to produce the item concerned in this case an email under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bhushan pulled back no punches to point out in simple, suave and straight language that, The intention was to intimidate Pracha and his clients.

The police have also refused to share the video recording of the searches. Because if they share, it will be revealed that they were taking the Union Home Minister's name during the searches. It cannot be lightly dismissed that apart from Prashant Bhushan among other lawyers even the SCBA has also expressed its resentment over the manner in which searches were carried out at Pracha's premises. This definitely cannot be lightly dismissed as even the SCBA has taken serious note of it. Let us wait and watch as to what comes out of the probe that follows!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top