Karnataka High Court Shields Advocate in Dharmasthala Case, Citing Privileged Communication

Bengaluru, India – In a ruling that reinforces the sacrosanct nature of advocate-client privilege, the Karnataka High Court has granted interim protection to an advocate facing police action for issuing a press release related to the ongoing Dharmasthala secret burials investigation. The court stayed a police summons and restrained authorities from taking any coercive action against the lawyer, underscoring the special protections afforded to legal professionals in the discharge of their duties.

The order, passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum on September 4, offers significant relief to the advocate, who was booked for allegedly spreading false information and causing public mischief. This case, Manjunath N v. State of Karnataka & ANR , is poised to become a critical touchstone in the ongoing discourse about the boundaries of an advocate's professional conduct and the limits of law enforcement's investigative powers when dealing with legal counsel.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Press Release and a Police FIR

The controversy stems from the advocate's representation of a woman whose daughter reportedly went missing in the temple town of Dharmasthala in 2003. This individual case gained prominence amidst a larger, more sensational investigation initiated after a former sanitation worker claimed he had been forced to secretly bury numerous bodies in the area between 1995 and 2014. The state government subsequently formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe these disturbing allegations.

On July 30, in his capacity as counsel, the advocate issued a press release titled "Smt. Sujatha Bhat's Unwavering Resolve as Dharmasthala Exhumation Continue." According to the advocate's petition, this was done with the "bona fide intention of keeping the public informed about the progress of the investigation and to demonstrate his client's unwavering commitment to the quest for truth and justice."

However, the Belthangady police in Dakshina Kannada district took a different view. On August 22, an FIR was registered against the lawyer, accusing him of spreading false information. The police invoked Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to making or circulating false statements likely to cause public fear or alarm and promoting enmity between different groups. A summons was subsequently issued to him on September 1, prompting him to approach the High Court to quash the FIR and seek protection from coercive measures.

High Court's Intervention: Upholding Professional Privilege

In his order, Justice Magadum leaned heavily on established principles safeguarding the legal profession. The court's decision was significantly influenced by recent observations from the Supreme Court and a procedural circular from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), both of which emphasize the protected status of advocate-client communications.

The High Court specifically referenced a prima facie view expressed by the Supreme Court in a suo-motu matter, where the apex court noted that the summoning of legal professionals by police or prosecuting agencies regarding client information is "untenable and a threat to autonomy of the legal profession."

Furthermore, Justice Magadum highlighted an observation from another Supreme Court proceeding earlier this year, stating that advocates, by virtue of being legal professionals, possess "certain rights and privileges guaranteed" beyond their fundamental right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This protection is statutorily codified, with the court citing Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which governs privileged professional communications.

The Supreme Court had observed at the time that advocates “who are engaged in their legal practice apart from their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals and also due to statutory provisions like Section 132 of BSA (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)”.

The ED Circular: A Procedural Blueprint

Reinforcing this legal framework, the High Court also pointed to a crucial 2023 circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate. The ED's directive explicitly instructs its officers not to compel legal practitioners to disclose communications made to them in the course of their professional service without the client's express consent. It establishes a high procedural bar, stating that even in exceptional cases where a summons might be necessary, it cannot be issued without the approval of the ED Director.

Drawing a parallel, the High Court applied the spirit of these guidelines to the current case. In its order granting interim relief, the court directed:

“Meanwhile, respondent No.1/Investigating Agency is directed not to take any coercive steps till the next date of hearing…”

The court further ordered that the summons issued on September 1 "shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing," which has been scheduled for October 8.

Broader Implications for the Legal Fraternity

This interim order is being hailed within the legal community as a crucial defense against potential state overreach. The act of an advocate communicating with the media on behalf of a client is a common, and often necessary, part of legal strategy, particularly in high-profile cases. The police's decision to file an FIR for public mischief in response to such an action was seen by many as a tactic to intimidate counsel and stifle representation in a sensitive investigation.

The court's reliance on Section 132 of the BSA, alongside Supreme Court observations, signals a robust judicial intent to protect the functional autonomy of lawyers. It affirms that actions taken in the "course and for the purpose of his professional service," including strategic public communication, fall under a protective umbrella. By treating the police summons as a potential infringement on this privilege, the Karnataka High Court has set a significant precedent that may deter law enforcement agencies from targeting lawyers for zealously representing their clients' interests.

The case also brings into focus the delicate balance between an advocate's duty to their client, their freedom of expression, and the state's interest in preventing the spread of misinformation. The petitioner’s plea asserts that the FIR is "wholly misconceived, legally untenable, and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights." The upcoming hearing on October 8 will be closely watched, as the court is expected to delve deeper into whether the advocate's press release genuinely constituted a bona fide act of professional duty or crossed the line into public mischief as defined under the BNS.