The Kerala High Court strongly criticized a Sub-Inspector of Police for issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to a lawyer representing an accused individual. The court questioned the legal basis for summoning an advocate in connection with an investigation involving his client.
Section 35(3) of BNSS mandates that if an arrest is not required under Section 35(1), the police must issue a notice directing the individual, against whom credible information or reasonable suspicion exists regarding a cognizable offense, to appear before them at a specified place.
Following a court order, the Sub-Inspector of Njarakkal police station appeared before the High Court on March 25. Justice Kauser Edappagath, presiding over the matter, expressed strong reservations about the action taken by the police officer.
During the hearing, the court pointedly questioned the Sub-Inspector’s authority to issue a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to a lawyer, emphasizing that lawyers are officers of the court.
The court orally remarked:
“He is an officer like you, an officer of this Court. How can you issue a 35(3) notice to a lawyer who appeared for a client? If compensation is claimed, you will have to pay. This is an Article 21 violation. What power do you have?”
The bench clarified that such notices can only be issued to individuals against whom reasonable suspicion of committing a cognizable offense exists.
The police had issued the notice following a complaint by the accused against the Sub-Inspector, alleging custodial torture. This move was seen as an attempt to intimidate the lawyer, raising serious concerns about legal ethics and procedural violations.
Judicial Intervention and Protection of Lawyer-Client Privilege
The High Court stressed the need to protect privileged communication between lawyers and their clients. The court further directed the Sub-Inspector to personally communicate with the lawyer and resolve the issue, cautioning him about the legal repercussions of his actions.
The court indicated that it would issue a detailed order to prevent such incidents in the future, ensuring the legal fraternity is protected from undue police intervention.
As the session concluded, the Sub-Inspector submitted a written statement before the court, withdrawing the notice issued to the lawyer.
Case Background: Allegations Against the Police
The case revolves around a couple from West Bengal who were arrested on allegations of being Bangladeshi nationals with forged identification documents, including Aadhaar, Election Identity cards, and driving licenses.
The police allegedly arrested the husband, detained him illegally, and subjected him to custodial torture. The wife was arrested the following day, and both have remained in judicial custody since February 6.
Subsequently, the police issued a notice under Section 94 of BNSS, directing the lawyer to submit the accused's identification documents. However, before receiving this notice, the lawyer had already submitted these documents before the Magistrate Court on behalf of his clients.
Following this, a second notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued to the lawyer, summoning him for questioning as part of the investigation.
The lawyer, in his petition, argued that:
- He had acted solely in the interests of his clients.
- The notice under Section 35(3) was illegal and not maintainable.
- The documents were submitted before the Magistrate Court as per the client’s instructions due to concerns over their safekeeping with the police.
- The police had no authority to summon him as a witness in a case involving his clients.
- Lawyer-client communication is confidential and legally protected from disclosure.
The High Court has listed the matter for its next hearing on March 27.
The case is being represented by Advocates S. Rajeev, K.R. Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, Aromalunni M.S., R.K. Rakesh, Nandana Babu T., Sreelakshmi P.S., Nandida Sebastian, and Naveen P. Mathew.
Case Title: Ajikumar K K v State of Kerala
Case No: WP (Crl) 363/2025
