In an application for stay with reference to a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking the quashing of a notice dated 19-12-2025 issued under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the impugned notice was against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and stayed the same during the pendency of the petition.
On 21-11-2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited and its directors for misusing SIM cards for cyber-criminal activities. One of the directors of the accused company approached the petitioner, an advocate, seeking legal advice regarding the same. The company deputed one of its staff members to submit certain documents to the CBI office, but the Investigation Officer (IO) (respondent 3) refused to accept them and harassed the staff member.
Thereafter, the petitioner, acting in his professional capacity, sent an email dated 15-12-2025 to the IO, along with relevant documents sought from the accused company, regarding the investigation. On 17-12-2025, the petitioner filed an application on behalf of one of the directors before the Sessions Court and was granted interim protection. However, on 19-12-2025, the IO issued the impugned notice to the petitioner, directing him to appear at the CBI office with certified copies of the documents forwarded through the said email.
The Court noted the said email and found it to be clearly mentioned that the petitioner was communicating on behalf of his client with the details of the petitioner-advocate’s office mentioned at the end of the email.
The Court found it evident from the impugned notice that the same had been issued to the petitioner to produce the certified documents and to summon him in his personal capacity for recording his statement under Section 180 of BNSS. It was held that the issuance of the impugned notice was against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320.
The Court said that the impugned notice made it clear that the IO was well aware that the petitioner was the advocate of the accused company and that his directions, prima facie, treated him as a witness in the investigation even though his involvement in the matter arose only from his professional engagement.
It was stated that the role of an advocate in representing a client, communicating with the investigating agency, and facilitating lawful cooperation could not be equated with that of a witness or any other person liable to be examined during an investigation. The Court said that even though every advocate has knowledge of the facts of the case, it does not make every lawyer a witness in all cases handled by him/her.
The Court held that the course adopted in the present matter could not be permitted as it would not only have far-reaching consequences but would also adversely affect the independence of the legal profession. Thus, the Court directed that the impugned notice be stayed during the pendency of the present petition and disposed of the application for stay.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Mr. Ashish Sareen, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. K.K. Mishra, Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Mr. Gautam Singh, Mr. Ayush Yadav, Mr. Ratnesh Mathur, Mr. Adarsh Singh, Mr. Divakar Kapil
For Respondents – Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar Rana
