Lalitendra Gulani Vs Mdirector General (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition after recording that the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to an Advocate, requiring disclosure of a legal opinion rendered to a client on the classification of imported goods, had already been withdrawn by the Revenue. The Court observed that the case concerned the issuance of summons to an Advocate who had rendered a legal opinion and held that, ordinarily, an Advocate ought to be summoned only in rare and exceptional circumstances. As the impugned summons had been withdrawn, the Court held that no further orders were called for and disposed of the writ petition along with the pending applications. The Court further stated that the authorities are expected to exercise due care and caution while issuing summons to Advocates in such matters.
Facts:
- Lalitendra Gulani (“the Petitioner”) is a practising Advocate who, in his professional capacity, rendered a legal opinion to his client on the classification of imported goods.
- The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“the Respondent”) issued summons dated July 20, 2026 bearing File No. DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-33/INT-NIL/2025 (“the Impugned Summons”) under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“the Customs Act”), requiring the Petitioner to appear before the investigating officer in connection with the legal opinion so rendered.
- Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking, inter alia, a writ of certiorari quashing the Impugned Summons as being violative of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“the BSA”) and the Constitution of India; a writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent from taking any coercive step in furtherance of the Impugned Summons or compelling him, in his professional capacity as an Advocate, to disclose any privileged communication; and a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to frame appropriate guidelines/circular prescribing the procedure, level of approval and safeguards to be followed prior to issuance of summons to an Advocate for disclosure of legal opinions or professional communications rendered to a client.
- The Petitioner contended that the legal opinion had been rendered purely in a professional capacity and constituted privileged communication protected under Section 132 of the BSA, and that compelling its disclosure would strike at the very root of the Advocate-client relationship and the independence of the legal profession.
- The Petitioner further contended that the reliefs sought were consistent with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025.
- During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Impugned Summons had already been withdrawn and that the writ petition had, therefore, been rendered infructuous.
Issue:
- Whether an Advocate can be summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act to disclose a legal opinion rendered to a client in his professional capacity, when such communication is protected as privileged communication under Section 132 of the BSA.
Held:
