Lawyers not immune from prosecution if......: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to quash criminal proceedings against a lawyer accused of conspiring with the main accused in a criminal case [Vinod vs State of Rajasthan].

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale made it clear that lawyers cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because of their professional status.

The Court rejected the argument that a lawyer’s phone conversations with an accused person, in the absence of direct evidence, could not justify criminal charges.

“If during probe any incriminating material comes on record, even against a lawyer, then it has to go on. Even phone conversations are covered by it,” Justice Mithal remarked.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that a lawyer merely being in telephonic contact with an accused should not attract prosecution.

“Just because the lawyer had a conversation with the accused, he cannot be impleaded. There has to be direct evidence. Contacting on phone cannot be the basis,” the counsel submitted.

Responding to the submission, Justice Mithal posed a hypothetical question:

“That has to be seen at trial, right? You have been advising them and appear to be a criminal mastermind as to how the crime has to be committed. As a civil lawyer there can be rent dispute… now if you advise the landlord on phone that if the tenant is not vacating, you can have a truck driver mow down the tenant…"

When the lawyer pointed out that no such allegation existed in the present case, the Court remained firm that these were matters to be tested during trial.

“Narration will be there when evidence is recorded. Always call client to chamber and advise, and not on phone. Now lawyers will be careful,” the Court said.

With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition and allowed the trial to proceed.

[Read Live Coverage]