The Delhi High Court has stayed a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to an advocate, directing him to produce certified documents and appear in person to record his statement in a case involving his client. Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the notice was prima facie “in teeth of” the Supreme Court’s recent directions regarding the summoning of advocates and observed that treating a lawyer as a witness merely for discharging professional duties would adversely affect the independence of the legal profession.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Sachin Bajpai seeking the quashing of a notice dated December 19, 2025, issued by the CBI under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The notice required the petitioner to submit certified copies of documents he had previously emailed to the Investigating Officer (IO) on behalf of his client and to appear personally to record his statement. The Court stayed the operation of the impugned notice during the pendency of the petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320.
Background of the Case
The CBI had registered an FIR (No. RC2212025E0016) on November 21, 2025, against a company named Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited and its directors. The allegations involved the misuse of SIM cards for cyber-criminal activities.
According to the petitioner, one of the directors of the accused company approached him for legal assistance on December 5, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the company attempted to submit certain documents to the CBI office through a staff member to cooperate with the investigation. However, the IO allegedly refused to accept them. Consequently, the petitioner, acting in his professional capacity, emailed the relevant documents to the IO on the same day.
On December 17, 2025, the petitioner secured interim protection for one of the directors from a Sessions Court. Shortly thereafter, on December 19, 2025, the IO issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. The notice directed him to:
- Produce the documents furnished via email with certification under Section 63(4)(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- Appear in person on December 20, 2025, to record his statement under Section 180 of the BNSS, on the grounds that he was “acquainted with the facts/circumstances” of the case.
Arguments of the Parties Senior Advocates Mr. Mohit Mathur and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had acted solely in his professional capacity. They submitted that the documents were emailed only after the IO refused to accept them physically from the client’s staff. It was contended that the notice was issued immediately after the petitioner successfully obtained interim protection for his client.
Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI, requested time to file a reply and seek instructions regarding the issuance of the notice.
Court’s Observations and Analysis Justice Sharma perused the emails sent by the petitioner, noting that they clearly stated he was submitting information “on behalf of our Client M/s Lord Mahavira Services India Pvt. Ltd.” to facilitate the investigation. The Court observed that the IO was well aware of the petitioner’s status as the advocate for the accused company, as acknowledged in the notice itself.
The Court held that the notice proceeded on the premise of treating the advocate as a witness merely because he had forwarded documents on his client’s instructions. The Bench stated:
“The role of an advocate in representing a client, communicating with the investigating agency on behalf of the client, and facilitating lawful cooperation with the investigation cannot be equated with that of a witness or any other person liable to be examined during investigation.”
The High Court found the notice to be contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320. Specifically, the Court pointed to paragraph 67(1.2) of the Supreme Court judgment, which restrains Investigating Officers from issuing summons to advocates representing an accused to know case details unless covered by specific exceptions, which require recorded satisfaction of a superior officer.
Justice Sharma emphasized the privilege of the client-advocate relationship:
“Further, the relationship between an advocate and his client is such that the client discloses facts of his case to him, so that he can defend him. On that account, every advocate defending his client will have knowledge of the facts of the case. However, this cannot make every lawyer a witness in all the cases handled by him/her…”
The Court warned of the consequences of such actions by the agency:
“Permitting such a course, as adopted in the present case, would have far-reaching consequences, and if allowed, such a practice would adversely affect the independence of the legal profession…”
Decision The High Court directed that the impugned notice dated December 19, 2025, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the petition. The application for stay was allowed, and the Respondent No. 3 (IO) was directed to remain present in person on the next date of hearing, scheduled for December 23, 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sachin Bajpai v. Union of India & Ors.
- Case No: W.P.(CRL) 4250/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi
- Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Mathur and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocates, along with Mr. Gaurav Bharadwaj, Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Mr. Ashish Sareen, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. K.K. Mishra, Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Mr. Gautam Singh, Mr. Ayush Yadav, Mr. Ratnesh Mathur, Mr. Adarsh Singh, and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates.
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, SPP with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates.
