Legal profession will come to an end if.......: Read Allahabad High Court's concerns

The Allahabad High Court recently held that lawyers cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution merely for performing their professional duties.

A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Saxena and Justice JJ Munir made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of conspiring with his client in a GST case.

The Court observed that prosecuting advocates for decisions taken in the course of their professional duties strikes at the root of the legal system and the right to legal representation.

The Court cautioned against equating professional legal advice with criminal conspiracy. It underscored that holding lawyers liable for actions taken on behalf of clients would undermine both the independence of the Bar and citizens’ access to justice.

“If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practice under the Advocates Act. It would, indirectly also, deprive the citizens of their right to the much valued right to legal assistance, because a person, who practices the profession of law before defending his client, would be thinking about his own defence and, this he would be thinking about, before he files a vakalatnama and takes steps on behalf of his client,” observed the Court.

The case arose from the advocate’s role in filing certain appeals on behalf of his client against some GST assessment orders.

While filing the appeals, a mandatory pre-deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax was made by utilising the Input Tax Credit available in the client’s electronic credit ledger. The lawyer believed this method was legally permissible.

The GST authorities, however, disagreed with this approach. After the appeals were dismissed on maintainability grounds, the Deputy Commissioner lodged a first information report (FIR) alleging tax evasion and conspiracy. The FIR named not only the assessee but also his advocate for adopting the above method of pre-deposit.

The advocate challenged this before the High Court.

The Court, in its May 21 order, ruled that the criminal proceedings initiated against the advocate were fundamentally flawed and contrary to settled principles of criminal liability.

It noted that the lawyer had acted strictly in his professional capacity while filing the appeals and adopting a particular interpretation of the law. It found no material to suggest that the advocate had any role in the client’s business or that he had entered into any criminal conspiracy.

Commenting on the nature of the advocate’s conduct in the present case, the Court said,

“It is purely a professional act and not at all something to do with his client’s business. It was done in the course of filing an appeal and nothing more. It was based on a particular view of the law, whether right, wrong or utterly wrong.”

The Court was also critical of the hasty manner in which the prosecution had proceeded in the case.

"We must notice, as we have already done that after notice was issued in this case, the Police swung into action and a charge-sheet was promptly cleared and filed in Court, all in one day, that is to say on 14.05.2026 and an order of cognizance was also passed the same day by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate."

Holding that the case violated settled principles of criminal liability, the Court concluded that the FIR and subsequent proceedings could not be sustained insofar as they related to the lawyer.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR dated October 4, 2025, the charge-sheet and the trial court's cognisance order insofar as they related to the advocate. It directed that appropriate entries be made in police records to reflect the same.

Senior Advocate Sushil Shukla along with advocates Sharad Sharma and Samarpan Jain appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi and Additional Government Advocate Sadhna Singh represented the GST Department.

Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari represented the State authorities.

[Read Order]