Kerala High Court slams police for attempt to intimidate accused's lawyer by summoning him

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Njarakkal police for issuing a police notice to a lawyer and summoning him to the police station, in an apparent attempt to intimidate him after his clients accused the police of custodial torture [Ajikumar KK v The State of Kerala & anr]..The lawyer had challenged a police notice issued to him under Section 35(3) (police notice to a person suspected of having committed an offence but whose arrest is unnecessary) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).Justice Kauser Edappagath took a serious view of the matter and underscored that advocates cannot be summoned in this manner or compelled to give evidence against their clients."How is a counsel representing his clients made an accused in the crime? He is an officer like you, an officer of this Court. How can you issue a 35(3) notice to a lawyer who appeared for a client? If compensation is claimed, you will have to pay. This is an Article 21 violation. What power do you have?" the judge asked the police today. The Sub-Inspector of the police, who was personally present in Court eventually informed that the police notice has been withdrawn. A letter issued to that effect was handed over to the Court. .However, the Court hinted that it would also issue a detailed order laying down guidelines to protect advocates in future from similar actions.Justice Edappagath underscored that the police cannot summon a lawyer in a bid to force the disclosure of privileged communications between the lawyer and his client."You (police) have no authority to summon an advocate under Section 41A of the CrPC for disclosing privileged client communications. The procedure is wrong, and there must be justification for such actions ... All communication with clients is privileged—why should an advocate disclose this?" the judge remarked..The matter will be heard further on March 27, 2025..Police has no authority to summon an advocate for disclosing privileged client communications.Kerala High Court.The Court was dealing with a petition by a Kochi-based advocate, Ajikumar KK, who has been representing a married couple accused of being Bangladeshi nationals with forged documents such as Aadhaar cards and voter IDs.The police alleged that the documents of the couple were fabricated to falsely establish Indian citizenship. The couple was arrested and has been in judicial custody since February 6, 2025.It was later alleged that one of the accused was tortured while in police custody. A complaint was also filed through their lawyer, advocate Ajikumar, before the Magistrate against the Sub-Inspector of the Njarakkal Police Station on allegations that the couple was illegally detained and the husband tortured in police custody. Following this complaint, the police initially issued a notice under Section 94 (summons to produce document or other thing) of BNSS, directing the lawyer to submit the accused couple's documents.However, the lawyer had already handed over these documents to the Magistrate Court.Subsequently, the police issued a Section 35(3), BNSS notice, summoning the advocate himself.The advocate challenged this notice before the High Court. .He contended the Advocates Act, 1961 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India protected an advocate's right to practice and that the police's action violated professional confidentiality under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.He argued that the police notice was a deliberate attempt to intimidate the advocate and obstruct his legal practice.The Court today also took note of the advocate's claim that the police action was retaliatory, since it was filed after the lawyer's clients accused the police of custodial torture..Advocates S Rajeev, KR Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, Aromalunni MS, RK Rakesh, Nandana Babu T, Sreelakshmi PS, Nandida Sebastian, and Naveen P Mathew appeared for the petitioner, advocate Ajikumar..[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]