Advocate cannot be harassed unless there is prima facie material suggesting the advocate’s personal involvement in any alleged illegality

General
1

case note for the judgment in Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 11021/2025, decided by the Delhi High Court on 28 July 2025:

Case Note

Case Title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
Date of Order: 28 July 2025
Citation: W.P.(C) 11021/2025

Facts of the Case:

  • The petitioner, Puneet Batra, is a practicing advocate and a member of several bar associations.
  • He was engaged by M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., a gaming company, to handle legal matters including GST, IPR, IT returns, etc.
  • A GST Department search was conducted at the client’s premises in September 2024.
  • The petitioner had handled over 100 matters for the client but withdrew from representation in September 2024.
  • Subsequent summons were issued to the petitioner by the Anti-Evasion Branch of CGST Delhi East, with limited appearances and representations made.
  • On 25 July 2025, the GST Department conducted a search at the petitioner’s office and seized documents and a CPU containing 1250 GB of data.

Issues:

  1. Whether the GST Department was justified in conducting a search and seizure at the office of an advocate.
  2. Whether the seizure of privileged documents and a CPU violated the attorney-client confidentiality.
  3. Whether the repeated summons and actions by the GST Department amounted to harassment of a legal representative.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner’s Counsel: Asserted that the search and seizure were illegal and that the CPU likely contained confidential and privileged client information.
  • Respondents’ Counsel (GST Dept.): Sought time to file a short affidavit to clarify the basis for the search and seizure.

Observations of the Court:

  • The Court emphasized the importance of attorney-client privilege, noting that documents given to a lawyer by a client are inherently confidential.
  • It stated that an advocate cannot be harassed unless there is prima facie material suggesting the advocate’s personal involvement in any alleged illegality.
  • It expressed concern over the lack of clarity in the justification for the search at a lawyer’s office.

Order:

  1. The GST Department is directed to file an affidavit explaining the basis of the search.
  2. The petitioner is not required to appear pursuant to the impugned summons until the next hearing.
  3. The seized CPU is not to be opened or its contents accessed without the presence of the petitioner or his authorized representative.
  4. Next date of hearing fixed for: 4 August 2025.