Existing procedural laws on search warrants are sufficient to protect advocates’ rights; blanket procedures cannot be imposed via Public Interest Litigation.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, CJ. (Oral)

1. Present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Search warrants be issued against advocates only when investigating officer has obtained prior sanction from Director of Prosecutions (DoP) upon the submission of an appropriate standardised proforma by investigating officer, issued as determined by this Hon'ble Court, submitted through an officer not part of the investigation of the rank of Superintendent of Police, after due deliberation thereupon by the DoP; and

b) Search warrant be issued against advocates only when Court issuing search warrant concludes in writing that alternative methods of obtaining information have been considered by the investigating agency, and that such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective; and

c) Search warrants issued against advocates be executed in terms of S.103 CrPC wherever practicable; and where not practicable, reasons be recorded by the Magistrate in order issuing warrant, along with the appointment of a "privilege team" comprising law enforcement agents unconnected with the investigation and Bar Council appointed independent advocates to execute search warrants; and

d) All documents/articles seized be submitted directly to the jurisdictional Magistrate under sealed cover. e) Copies of all seized materials be provided forthwith to the subject attorney or a legal representative; and

f) All participating law enforcement agents be mandated to wear clear and visible identification and individual body cameras throughout the execution of the search warrant, with the entire search exercise audio and videographed, which recording (s) be deposited with the jurisdictional Magistrate at the culmination of proceedings; and

g) Search officials be mandated to follow the procedures as determined by this Hon'ble Court to effect the Searching and Seizing of Computers and other electronic devices and records; and

h) Adequate training be undertaken by Respondents of law enforcement agencies with regard to the provisions of effecting legal search and seizure;

i) Adequate training be undertaken by Respondents of the Magistracy with regard to the provisions of effecting legal search and seizure;

j) Pass any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. Petitioner appearing in person is aggrieved by the actions and omissions of the Respondents in effecting search and seizure operations at the premises of Advocates. A direction is sought for framing of mandatory procedures/guidelines to be followed by Police/Investigating Agencies while carrying out search and seizure operations on the premises of an Advocate, who is a suspect, subject or target, an Advocate related by blood or married to a suspect or the one who is believed to be in possession of contraband or proceeds of a crime as also related to searches of business organizations where they involve material in possession of individuals serving in the capacity of a legal advisor to the organization.

3. The argument put forth by the Petitioner is that the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, provides protection to professional and confidential communications with the legal advisors under Sections 126 to 129, whereby any person who seeks the services of an advocate, registered under the Advocates Act, 1961 enjoys the attorney-client privilege. In Kalikumar Pal vs. Rajkumar Pal, AIR 1952 Cal 148, the Court ruled that communications between an attorney and a client are privileged even if they contain infor