HC raps Matunga police for ‘blatantly illegal’ summons to 93-year-old petitioner’s lawyer

The court further reiterated a Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that lawyers cannot be summoned in their client’s cases except under narrowly defined statutory exceptions

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has pulled up investigating officers of Matunga police station for repeatedly issuing summons to the advocate of a 93-year-old petitioner in a criminal case, calling the action a “blatant illegal act,” noting that the summons had been illegally issued after the court had stayed further investigation in the case in 2024. The court further reiterated a Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that lawyers cannot be summoned in their client’s cases except under narrowly defined statutory exceptions.

Bombay High Court (HT Photo)

In an order dated November 4, made available on Sunday, a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil was hearing a petition filed by businessman Narshi Mulji Shah, who is facing proceedings in an FIR registered in April 2024. The court stayed further investigation in the case on September 3, 2024. Despite this, the present investigating officer, assistant police inspector Anil Kamble, continued to summon the petitioner’s advocate, Hemakshi Gandhi.

The bench examined notices issued before and after the stay—dated April 22, May 14 and October 15, 2025—and noted that the officers issued these summons knowing fully well that Gandhi was representing the accused.

Counsel for the petitioner, Pravin Gaikwad, argued that such conduct had deterred lawyers from taking up the brief, as police continued to issue notices. The court held that both former investigating officer, police sub-inspector Pradip Bhitade and assistant police inspector Kamble acted without lawful authority in summoning the advocate. When questioned in open court, Kamble failed to justify the notices and tendered an unconditional apology.

Relying on a Supreme Court ruling on the summoning of advocates during investigations, the bench reiterated that lawyers cannot be summoned except under narrowly defined statutory exceptions. It also highlighted Sections 132 to 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which protect privileged communication between a lawyer and client—an essential safeguard for the justice system.

Calling the officers’ conduct “extremely serious,” the court said the police had no power to summon the petitioner’s advocate without invoking an applicable exception and that failure to record such an exception made the summons illegal.

The court directed Kamble to pay ₹5,000 for each unlawful summons, to be deposited in the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund within two weeks. It also ordered the senior inspector of Matunga police station to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The order will also be forwarded to the authority where former IO Bhitade is currently posted for further action.

Additionally, the high court instructed that copies of its order and the Supreme Court judgment be circulated to all police commissioners and superintendents of police in Maharashtra for compliance.