Back
Orders FIR, SIT for Threat to Lawyer in NDPS Case
In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary's zero-tolerance stance toward , the has directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the constitution of a headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police. The order came after the petitioner's counsel reported receiving death threats from an international number, demanding withdrawal of a plea seeking a fair investigation in a case.
The Court, presided over by Justice N.S. Shekhawat, observed that attempting to coerce a lawyer into abandoning a legitimate legal proceeding constitutes a "direct attack" on the institution of justice and amounts to . The ruling was delivered in the matter of , where the petitioner had alleged that her husband was falsely implicated in an NDPS case at the behest of individuals operating an illegal drug network from within prison.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Surpreet Kaur, approached the High Court seeking a fair investigation into the circumstances surrounding her husband's arrest. She contended that the case was fabricated by a nexus of gangsters, jail officials, and personnel who were allegedly running a drug trade from inside the jail. The matter initially came up for hearing on , when the Court issued notice and directed the State to file parawise replies. Subsequently, a status report was submitted by the Director General of Police, Punjab.
However, the proceedings took a dramatic turn when the petitioner's counsel, , moved an application under , seeking protection for his life and liberty and that of his family. The application disclosed that Randhawa had received threatening calls demanding withdrawal of the petition.
The Threat: Intimidation from an International Number
According to the counsel's submission, on the night of , at around 10:48 PM—just two days before the next hearing—he received a call from an unknown international number. The caller threatened him, claiming to have a vast network across Punjab and across the border, and asserted that jail and police officials had "joined hands" with them. The caller specifically demanded that the petition be withdrawn, warning that the counsel's family members would face dire consequences if he failed to comply.
Advocate Randhawa immediately disconnected the call, but the harassment did not stop. He subsequently received seven recorded voice messages and 17 missed calls from the same number. In the voice messages, the caller allegedly claimed that certain individuals inside the jail were facing severe restrictions on mobile phone usage because of the counsel's efforts and reiterated the demand to withdraw the case. The caller also claimed to know the counsel's family details and threatened to "teach a lesson" to them.
Fearing for his safety, Randhawa brought the matter to the Court's attention on the next hearing date, . He made an oral request to implead the as a respondent, which the Court allowed. The Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh accepted notice.
Court's Observation: A Direct Attack on the Justice System
Justice N.S. Shekhawat did not mince words while condemning the threats. The Court observed that such intimidation tactics directly interfere with the administration of justice and constitute a clear case of . In a strongly worded observation, the Court stated:
"Such an attempt made by a criminal clearly amounts to and clearly a case for is made out against such persons. At the same time, this incident highlights a between the criminals, jail officials and officials of ."
The Court further noted that while gangsters have historically threatened the general public, the present case marked a dangerous escalation. The judge remarked:
"Earlier, only the general public was being threatened by the gangsters, but now an attempt has been made to obstruct the court of justice and it is a as well, and such cannot be taken lightly."
Court's Orders: FIR and SIT Constituted
Taking immediate cognizance, the Court directed the , to register an FIR based on the application filed by Advocate Randhawa. It further ordered the , to constitute a Special Investigation Team within 24 hours, headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police. The SIT was tasked with conducting a fair and impartial investigation, with liberty to probe the roles of all individuals involved, including criminals, police officials, and jail staff. The Court also directed the SSP to assess the threat perception to the counsel and his family and to take appropriate protective measures as per law.
The Court expressed its expectation that those responsible for issuing the threats "would be arrested immediately." The head of the SIT is required to file a status report of the investigation by way of an affidavit before the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for further proceedings on , on an urgent basis.
Legal Implications: Contempt and Interference with Justice
The ruling reinforces the principle that the independence of the legal profession is integral to the proper functioning of the judiciary. Threats to lawyers—especially those aimed at forcing withdrawal of cases—strike at the very foundation of the . By invoking the jurisdiction and directing an FIR under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the High Court has sent a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated.
The Court's reliance on Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (which corresponds to ) to grant protective directions is also noteworthy. This provision grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court used this power not only to protect the counsel but also to ensure a thorough investigation into the alleged nexus between gangsters and state machinery.
Impact on Legal Practice: Deterrence and Protection for Lawyers
For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a critical precedent. It affirms that the courts will step in decisively when lawyers face threats for performing their professional duties. The constitution of an SIT headed by a high-ranking police officer ensures that the investigation is not compromised by local influences, which is particularly important given the allegations of complicity by jail and police officials.
The case also highlights the growing problem of organized crime operating from within correctional facilities and the need for robust mechanisms to protect the integrity of legal proceedings. By ordering immediate protective measures and a transparent investigation, the High Court has demonstrated its willingness to back up its verbal condemnation with concrete action.
Conclusion
The 's intervention in is a landmark step in safeguarding the independence of the Bar and the sanctity of the judicial process. The threats to were not merely an attack on an individual lawyer but a direct assault on the justice system itself. With the FIR and SIT now in place, the focus will shift to unearthing the deeper criminal network that sought to subvert justice. The legal community will be watching closely as the investigation unfolds, and the next hearing on October 30 promises to be a critical juncture in this case.
The message from the High Court is unequivocal: those who attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by threatening legal counsel will face the full force of the law.
