The High Court's directions in this case are as follows: The notice issued to the advocate under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was found to be illegal, ultra vires, and an abuse of the legal process. The Court held that police cannot summon an advocate in his professional capacity as it infringes upon client confidentiality and the advocate's right to practice (!) . The police's action of issuing the notice was an infringement of the advocate's rights protected under the relevant legislation and the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the police have no authority to summon an advocate for investigation purposes regarding privileged communications with clients (!) . The Court noted that the notice had already been withdrawn by the police, rendering the petition moot. Therefore, there was no need to further quash the notice (!) . The Court directed that police officers must strictly comply with the statutory provisions when issuing notices or making arrests, particularly emphasizing that notices under Section 35(3) should not be issued to advocates or in situations involving privileged communication (!) . The Kerala State Police Chief was directed to instruct all police officers in the State to adhere strictly to these statutory provisions and ensure that the power under Section 35(3) is not misused to harass or intimidate individuals, including advocates (!) . Overall, the Court disposed of the original petition considering that the contested notice had been withdrawn and reinforced the principle that police actions must respect the rights of advocates and the confidentiality of client communications.

AJIKUMAR K.K S/o KARUNAKARAN PILLAI K, KUNDOOR vs THE STATE OF KERALA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
AJIKUMAR K.K S/o KARUNAKARAN PILLAI K, KUNDOOR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.R. Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, Aromalunni M.S., R.K. Rakesh, Nandana Babu T., Sreelakshmi P.S., Nandida Sebastian, Naveen P. Mathew, S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Raajesh S. Subrahmanian, Vishnu T.C.
For the Respondent: Smt. Sreeja V., SR. PP.

Judgement Key Points

The High Court's directions in this case are as follows:

The notice issued to the advocate under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was found to be illegal, ultra vires, and an abuse of the legal process. The Court held that police cannot summon an advocate in his professional capacity as it infringes upon client confidentiality and the advocate's right to practice (!) .
The police's action of issuing the notice was an infringement of the advocate's rights protected under the relevant legislation and the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the police have no authority to summon an advocate for investigation purposes regarding privileged communications with clients (!) .
The Court noted that the notice had already been withdrawn by the police, rendering the petition moot. Therefore, there was no need to further quash the notice (!) .
The Court directed that police officers must strictly comply with the statutory provisions when issuing notices or making arrests, particularly emphasizing that notices under Section 35(3) should not be issued to advocates or in situations involving privileged communication (!) .
The Kerala State Police Chief was directed to instruct all police officers in the State to adhere strictly to these statutory provisions and ensure that the power under Section 35(3) is not misused to harass or intimidate individuals, including advocates (!) .
Overall, the Court disposed of the original petition considering that the contested notice had been withdrawn and reinforced the principle that police actions must respect the rights of advocates and the confidentiality of client communications.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, a practising advocate, was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), calling upon him to appear before the investigating officer in a crime in which he represented the accused at the Magistrate Court in a hearing on the bail application - a strange procedure unheard of in criminal investigation.

2. The Njarakkal Police registered a crime as Crime No.157 of 2025 against a husband and wife, alleging that they are Bangladeshi nationals and do not have proper documents to prove their citizenship. It is alleged that the couple fabricated and forged the documents such as their Aadhar Cards, Election Identity Cards, Driving Licence etc., to falsely establish their Indian citizenship and thus committed the offences punishable under Sections 336(2) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), as well as Sections 14A, 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act. The petitioner filed a bail application for the accused before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal. The bail application was dismissed.

3. According to the petitioner, Aadhar Cards, Election Identity Cards, Driv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document