The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 11021/2025 dated July 28, 2025] held that any search and seizure conducted at an advocate’s office must be justified by prima facie material showing the advocate’s involvement in alleged illegality, and attorney-client privilege must be respected. The Court held the GST Department not to open or access the seized CPU without the Petitioner or his representative present.
Facts:
Puneet Batra (“the Petitioner”) is an advocate and member of several bar associations, practicing in diverse areas including tax, cyber law, and criminal law.
Union of India & Others (“the Respondent”) through the GST Department conducted a search at the Petitioner’s office and seized documents and Central Processing Unit (“the CPU”).
The Petitioner argued that he was merely representing a client, M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., and had withdrawn representation after September 6, 2024. He claimed that the search and seizure at his office violated attorney-client privilege and his rights as an advocate.
The Respondent contended that a short affidavit would be filed, and submissions were yet to be made to justify the search and seizure. Aggrieved by the search on July 25, 2025, and the seizure of confidential legal documents and a CPU containing privileged material, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief against what he alleged was an illegal search and seizure action.
Held:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11021/2025 held as under:
- Observed that, any documents handed over by a client to an advocate are protected by attorney-client privilege.
- Noted that, an advocate cannot be subjected to coercive action unless the GST Department possesses material indicating the advocate’s personal involvement in alleged wrongdoing.
- Held that, the Department must justify the search and seizure of an advocate’s premises with prima facie material.
- Held that, the Petitioner is not required to appear pursuant to the July 25, 2025 summons until the next date of hearing.
- Held that, the seized CPU must not be opened or accessed by the GST Department without the Petitioner or his authorised representative present.
- Held that, the GST Department shall file an affidavit detailing the basis and manner of the search conducted at the advocate’s premises.
Our Comments:
A relevant precedent is the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Himangshu Kumar Ray v. State of W.B [2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1745], where the Court allowed an advocate (a third party to the original case) to appeal an order affecting him during a GST fraud investigation. The Court held that lawyers can challenge such actions if their rights are affected and emphasized that client communications are privileged, unless there is clear evidence they were used to commit or plan a crime. It also criticized the practice of sending general or standard notices to lawyers without proper investigation.
This supports the Delhi High Court’s direction that the seized CPU must not be opened without the Petitioner or his representative present, since it may contain confidential data related to clients. Both courts stress that tax authorities must follow due process, and any investigation involving advocates must be specific, justified, and respect legal protections.
Relevant Provision:
Section 133 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [ Previously Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872]
133. Professional communications.
“No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment.”
Exception- This section shall not protect from disclosure
(1) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose,
(2) any fact observed by any barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
