In a significant judicial intervention, the Allahabad High Court’s recent directive has prompted the Uttar Pradesh government to issue strict guidelines prohibiting police officers from directly contacting petitioners and advocates involved in sub-judice matters. The circular stems from a PIL filed by a 90-year-old man from Jaunpur, who alleged that police had harassed him to withdraw his plea regarding land encroachments. He claimed his house was raided in retaliation, and his lawyer echoed the concerns. This prompted the Allahabad High Court to take serious note of the intimidation, calling it a violation of judicial sanctity.
During the July 11 hearing, the High Court condemned the growing pattern of police targeting advocates involved in pending cases, describing it as an attack on the foundation of the judicial system. Justice JJ Munir, who led the bench, demanded firm action to curb the trend.
New Circular: 15-Point Guidelines to Safeguard Legal Process
On July 25, following the Court’s instructions, the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued a circular outlining 15 directives. Six of these — points (viii) to (xiii) — were found to directly address the issues raised in the Jaunpur case.
Key highlights include:
- No police officer shall contact petitioners, complainants, or their families in pending cases without legal sanction.
- Advocates cannot be contacted or summoned without due statutory process and permission from competent authorities.
- SHOs are barred from interfering in civil/property disputes without court orders.
- Orders of the High Court or Supreme Court restraining coercive action must be strictly followed.
- All communication must go through government counsel or public prosecutors, not directly with parties involved.
The Court emphasized that legal action must meet all legal and procedural standards, with prior approval from relevant authorities like the District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police.
Court Commendation and Concern Over Implementation
While the Court termed the guidelines “commendable and laudable,” it raised concerns over their future enforcement. The bench expressed fears that like many such directives, these too might be forgotten and left to “gather dust in the bureaus of district officials.”
To prevent that, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel has been asked to consult state officers and suggest concrete ways to implement the circulars regularly. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, also submitted an affidavit addressing the possible disciplinary action against the officers accused of harassing the petitioner and his lawyer.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 31, with Advocate Vishnu Kant Tiwari representing the petitioner.
Wider Legal Ramifications: Supreme Court Also Steps In
In a related development, the Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case addressing investigative agencies’ increasing trend of summoning advocates over their legal advice to clients. This action came after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, causing nationwide backlash.
Following bar protests, the ED withdrew the summons and issued an internal directive stating that such notices must now be approved by the ED Director.
On July 29, bar associations submitted suggestions to the apex court, recommending that lawyers should only be summoned with a magistrate’s approval and that legal fees should not be construed as proceeds of crime.
