Sachin Bajpai v. Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(Crl.) 4250/2025 Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
Overview
The current case revolves around the investigative agency’s powers in relation to advocates who appear on behalf of suspected offenders and with regard to the privilege of advocates with regard to access to justice, in relation to the new statutory provision in relation to crime, in light of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). This case revolves around whether the Investigating Officer (IO) can summon an advocate for the production of documents and for recording a statement in light of a communication between the advocate and the Investigating Officer on behalf of his client.
Facts
An FIR was filed on 21.11.2025 by the CBI against Lord Mahavira Services India Pvt. Ltd. And its directors for the misuse of SIM cards in cyber crimes. Later, on 05.12.2025, one of its directors called upon the petitioner, Sachin Bajpai, an advocate, for legal advice.
On the 15.12.2025, the documents demanded by the CBI were attempted to be physically tendered to the investigating authority by the company’s staff. However, the same was allegedly refused. Thereafter, the petitioner had emailed the documents to the investigating officer. The email mentioned that the documents are being forwarded on behalf of the client.
Subsequently, one of the directors applied for and obtained interim protection by an interim protection order issued by the Sessions Court on 17.12.2025. Thereafter, the IO issued an impugned notice of 19.12.2025 upon the petitioner pursuant to Sections 94 and 180 of BNSS:
Produce certified copies of all documents which have already been sent by email, appear personally for recording of his statement, on the ground that he knew about the facts of this case.
The aggrieved advocate consequently filed the current writ petition for the quashing of the notice.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Advocate appearing for the accused can be summoned by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of the recording of statements solely because he had communicated with the IO on behalf of his client.
- Whether such challenged notice violates the attorney client privilege provided by Sections 132-134 of the BSA, 2023
- Whether the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation is valid or not?
Decision
High Court of Delhi stayed “the impugned notice dated 19.12.2025.” The Court found that “the notice…is prima facie illegal, in obvious contravention of Supreme Court directives.”
It was made clear that the role of an advocate in communicating with the investigating authority in a professional capacity cannot make him a witness.
The IO failed to uphold mandatory safeguards, which include documenting written satisfaction of exemptions under Section 132 BSA with the approval of a senior officer.
The Court explained that if this were to be allowed, the implications would be grave, and this would affect the independence of the legal profession and encourage an inhibition in legal advocacy. The stay application was, therefore, granted, and the challenged notice was placed in abeyance pending hearing of the petition.
