Kerala High Court Criticizes Police Officer for Summoning Accused's Lawyer
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Kerala High Court criticized a police officer for improperly summoning an accused's lawyer under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The officer's actions raised concerns about legal privilege and procedural correctness, prompting the court to consider guidelines for safeguarding lawyers in similar situations.
Key Takeaways
- High Court's Authority: The court emphasized its power to protect legal representation.
- Improper Notice Issuance: Issuing a notice under Section 35(3) requires reasonable suspicion.
- Protection of Lawyers: The court intends to establish guidelines to prevent summoning lawyers without just cause.
- Judicial Oversight: Courts can intervene in cases of abuse of power by law enforcement.
- Retraction of Notice: The police officer withdrew the notice upon court intervention.
Kochi, March 25 (NationPress) The Kerala High Court expressed strong disapproval on Tuesday regarding the actions of a Sub-Inspector of Police who issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the lawyer representing the accused, requiring him to appear for questioning.
This Sub-Inspector from Njarakkal had previously arrested a couple from West Bengal, alleging they were undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and that their Aadhaar, Election Identity Cards, and driving license were fraudulent.
The couple is currently in judicial custody.
Despite the lawyer having already submitted all necessary documents to a local court, the police investigation team sent a notice to the lawyer demanding the submission of these documents.
Subsequently, the lawyer received a notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, indicating that he needed to be questioned as part of the ongoing investigation.
In response, the lawyer approached the High Court, which summoned the police officer to appear before it.
Critiquing the police officer's actions, the court highlighted that a notice under Section 35 (3) should only be issued to individuals when there is reasonable suspicion of their involvement in a cognizable offense.
“He is an officer like you, an officer of this Court. How can you issue a 35 (3) notice to a lawyer representing a client? If compensation is sought, you could be liable. This is a violation of Article 21. What authority do you possess?” the court remarked.
The court further noted that the notice was issued following a complaint from the accused against the Sub-Inspector, alleging police torture.
The court indicated it would release a comprehensive order regarding this matter, establishing guidelines to prevent the summoning of lawyers and to protect privileged communications.
Additionally, the court instructed the Sub-Inspector to reach out to the lawyer to resolve the issue, warning of potential consequences for his actions.
Before concluding the session for lunch, the Sub-Inspector submitted a letter to the court, indicating that the notice to the lawyer had been retracted.
