Treating a Lawyer as a Witness Would Adversely affect the Independence of the Legal Profession: Delhi HC

It is definitely in the fitness of things that while taking the right course of action, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Sachin Bajpai vs Union of India & Ors in W.P.(CRL) 4250/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:11699 that was pronounced as recently as on 20.12.2025 has stayed a notice that had been issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to an advocate, directing him to produce certified documents and appear in person to record his statement in a case involving his client.

- 

It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held in no uncertain terms that the notice was prima facie “in teeth of” the Supreme Court’s recent directions regarding the summoning of advocates. Most courageously and so also most fearlessly, the Bench minced absolutely just no words to hold most unequivocally that treating a lawyer as a witness merely for discharging professional duties would adversely affect the independence of the legal profession. No denying or disputing it! At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, seeking quashing of the impugned notice dated 19.12.2025 issued by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” As we see, the Bench then holds in para 4 that, “Issue notice. The learned Special Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Let reply be filed by the respondents, with advance copy to the petitioner, before the next date of hearing.” As things stands, the Bench directs in para 5 holding that,

“The respondent no. 3 is directed to remain present in person on the next date of hearing before this Court.”