A simple request for identification spiraled into a 17-year ordeal, but the Bombay High Court has now closed the chapter, exonerating three lawyers accused of assaulting and obstructing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers during a 2007 raid. The Court declared the accusations unfounded, characterizing the case as a result of the CBI officer’s “wounded ego.”
The legal battle began when Gobindram Daryanomal Talreja, Haresh Sobhraj Motwani, and intern Prateek Naushad Sanghvi intervened during a raid at a client’s office. Their alleged crime? Requesting the officers to display their identity cards and asserting their presence during the search.
“No Assault in Seeking Accountability”
Justice Milind Jadhav, delivering the judgment, dismantled the prosecution’s claims. “Asking CBI officers to disclose their identity cannot amount to assault or obstruction,” he observed. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the charges under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, noting that the incident stemmed from an officer’s personal affront rather than legitimate obstruction of duty.
The Court’s decision also included a directive for the State to compensate the lawyers ₹15,000 each for enduring nearly two decades of unwarranted legal proceedings.
Arrested for Upholding the Rule of Law
The saga began in November 2007 when CBI officers conducted a search at the office of Sonal Chitroda, a client of Talreja. When Chitroda reported mistreatment by the officers, Talreja sent his colleagues to intervene. Upon their arrival, tensions escalated as the lawyers asked for ID verification and sought to observe the investigation. The situation culminated in their arrests later that evening, an act the Court later deemed an abuse of power.
A Sharp Rebuke for Misuse of Authority
In its ruling, the Court criticized both the CBI and local police for mishandling the situation. Justice Jadhav underscored the absence of any credible evidence in the officers’ statements or the case record to substantiate claims of assault or obstruction. He condemned the arrests as “blindly subservient” to the CBI and admonished law enforcement for failing to apply independent judgment.
Particular sympathy was reserved for Sanghvi, a law student at the time. The Court empathized with the emotional and professional toll inflicted on him during his formative years in the legal field.
A Message to Law Enforcement
The judgment carried a broader message: law enforcement must exercise its authority responsibly, ensuring that laws are not wielded to harass citizens. “These costs are awarded to send a clear message that legal provisions should not be misused, causing irreparable hardship,” Justice Jadhav emphasized.
With the closure of this case, the Court upheld not only the innocence of the lawyers but also the principle that accountability in governance should never be construed as obstruction.
