PIL filed before Delhi High Court seeking guidelines to regulate search and seizure operations at advocates' premises

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Delhi High Court for formulation of mandatory guidelines to be followed by police in effecting search and seizure operations at the premises of an advocate under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Nikhil Borwankar vs State & Ors). .The petitioner before the High Court is Advocate Nikhil Borwankar..Referring to the statement of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in relation to the police raids at premises of Advocate Mehmood Pracha and the brutal assault of another advocate by police in Etah, Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner has claimed that the plea has been filed "at a time when there exists an atmosphere of deep mistrust and acrimony between advocates and law enforcement agencies with regard to recent searches executed against certain advocates representing accused persons and victims in controversial cases"..The situation, the petitioner states, gives rise to the perception of deliberate targeting of individuals and a collapse of the law and order machinery of the State to pursue justice objectively and without bias..The petitioner has asserted that "privileged communications" would be part of the material seized from the premises of an advocate and has claimed that it is imperative that appropriate procedures and guidelines be framed to ensure adequate safeguards with respect to laws on attorney-client privilege. ."..even during the search, or at any time thereafter, clients of the advocate may unwittingly continue to communicate privileged information to the advocate through electronic devices such as cell phones/internet etc., to which the search officials/investigators may become privy," it is added. .Borwankar has, thus, prayed that appropriate procedures ought to be designed to ensure that privileged materials are not improperly viewed, seized or retained during the course of the search. .The PIL was heard today by a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh. .Issuance of notice was opposed by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma who appeared for the Central government. .ASG Sharma stated that the PIL would amount to "upstaging" section 93 CrPC which does not provide for any exclusion of advocates, and would result in failure of the entire scheme of the Code. ."This is not the jurisdictional prerogative of PIL," ASG Sharma stated. .Hearing remained inconclusive today and the matter would be heard next on February 11.