On Wednesday, July 28th, a PIL that was lodged in the High Court of Delhi requested the development of necessary rules for investigative authorities to follow when conducting search and seizure operations at the offices of an attorney.
The Centre objected to the plea, claiming that the petitioner had not made the investigating agencies parties to the case and had not given the name of the lawyer on whom the search performed.
Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the Centre to give a brief response to the petition and stated that it will not be serving notice on the plea at this time. The case has been rescheduled for a hearing on September 3rd, Friday.
Petitioner Nikhil Borwankar, a lawyer, sought assistance on drafting processes and standards for conducting searches on lawyers with appropriate protections to guarantee that the law's provisions relating to lawyer - client confidentiality and their basic rights be respected.
The Centre is fighting this plea tooth and claw, according to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Advocate Ajay Digpaul, and the court would not deliver notice without giving them a hearing.
The identity of the advocate (on whom the search was done) must be revealed. He argued that the nature of this advocate's relationship with the petitioner should be revealed.
The petitioner, who is defined by advocate Prashant Bhushan, stated that the plea is being filed at a moment when there is a climate of deep mistrust and strife between advocates and law enforcement agencies as a result of recent searches conducted against certain advocates who represent accused persons and victims in high-profile cases.
According to the plea, this has led to the perception of purposeful targeting of individuals and a breakdown in the state's ability of the law and order to seek justice rationally and without prejudice.
