Sunday, September 20, 2026

Top 5 This Week

spot_img

Related Posts

J&K High Court: Advocate’s Status Does Not Shield Him From Lawful Police Inquiry

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has made it clear that an advocate cannot claim immunity from a lawful investigation merely by virtue of being a lawyer.

At the same time, the Court stressed that police authorities must follow the prescribed legal procedure when seeking an advocate’s presence or assistance during an investigation.

Justice Sanjay Parihar made the observations while disposing of a petition filed by advocate Wasim Ahmed Reshi, who had challenged repeated calls from the police in connection with an FIR involving allegations of kidnapping under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The dispute arose after Reshi, who had prepared an affidavit on behalf of the alleged victim, was asked to appear before the police during the course of the investigation.

The advocate alleged that the repeated summons to the police station amounted to intimidation and harassment and were being made without following the required procedure.

The police, however, rejected the allegation. It submitted that the affidavit prepared by Reshi suggested that he had been in contact with the alleged victim. According to the investigating agency, his assistance was therefore sought to obtain information concerning her whereabouts.

The High Court found that, in those circumstances, it could not conclude that the police had acted beyond the bounds of law.

The Court underlined that an advocate, as an officer of the Court, is expected to cooperate with a lawful investigation when his assistance is legitimately required.

“Merely because the petitioner is an advocate does not place him above the law,” the Court observed, adding that a lawyer’s legal knowledge also carries an expectation of lawful cooperation with investigating authorities so that the truth behind an alleged offence can be established.

However, the Court drew an equally important line for the investigating agency: any requirement for the petitioner’s presence or assistance must be pursued strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

With that clarification, the Court disposed of the petition along with the connected applications.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Popular Articles