The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently reiterated that being an advocate does not exempt an individual from legal obligations, emphasizing that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to assist investigative agencies when lawfully required. This assertion was made in the case Wasim Ahmed Reshi v. UT of JK and Others.
While addressing the obligations of legal professionals, the Court also reminded the police that they must adhere strictly to legal protocols when seeking an advocate’s presence or assistance during investigations. The bench directed investigating agencies to follow established procedures meticulously in such interactions.
“An advocate is not above the law merely by virtue of their profession,” the Court noted. “As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to provide necessary legal assistance to uncover the truth of alleged offenses and ensure justice is served if a crime has been committed,” the Court stated.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by a lawyer contesting repeated police summons linked to a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 137 (kidnapping) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that advocates, by their professional standing and knowledge of the law, have a duty to aid investigations to bring clarity to alleged offenses. In this instance, the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, had drafted an affidavit for the alleged victim in a kidnapping and POCSO case, prompting the police to call him for inquiries related to the ongoing investigation.
More Read
The petitioner argued before the Court that the police had misused the investigation process to intimidate and harass him, alleging repeated summons without compliance with legal procedures. In defense, the police contended that the affidavit suggested the petitioner was associated with the alleged victim, necessitating information about her whereabouts.
The High Court concluded that the police actions did not breach legal processes under the given circumstances. However, it instructed that any future requirement for the petitioner’s involvement in the investigation must strictly adhere to legal procedures. With these directions, the petition and associated applications were dismissed.
Advocate Wani Manzoor represented the petitioner, while the respondents were defended by advocate Harris Khan.
