Srinagar, Sept. 9, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that merely being an advocate does not place a person above the law, noting that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to provide lawful assistance to police agencies so that the truth in criminal investigations is brought to light.
The observations were made by Justice Sanjay Parihar while disposing of a writ petition filed by advocate Wasim Ahmad Reshi, who alleged police harassment and repeated summons without adherence to due process.
The controversy arose from FIR No. 198/2026 registered at Police Station Ramban under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. In connection with the investigation, Ramban Police, on August 6, 2026, addressed a communication to the Station House Officer of Police Station Magam, seeking the petitioner’s assistance.
The petitioner, an advocate by profession, had drafted an affidavit on behalf of the alleged minor victim in the case. While he contended that he was being subjected to intimidation and repeatedly summoned under the guise of investigation, the administration submitted that the affidavit indicated that the missing victim had been in contact with him, prompting investigators to enquire about her whereabouts.
Ruling on the matter, Justice Parihar held that the police had not acted outside the bounds of law in seeking information regarding a missing minor.
“In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents, while conducting the investigation in connection with the FIR, acted dehors the process of law. Merely because the petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above the law. Rather, being an officer of the Court and well versed with the legal position, he is expected to render such lawful assistance to the Investigating Agency as may be required so that the truth concerning the alleged offence is brought to light and, if an offence has indeed been committed, the offender is brought to justice. Such cooperation is in consonance with the administration of justice and the duties expected of an officer of the Court,” the court said.
The court simultaneously stressed that the police agency is equally obligated to act strictly within the four corners of the law and scrupulously follow statutory procedures while seeking information or assistance from the advocate.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police had stopped summoning the lawyer after the writ petition was filed, conceding that the cause of action did not survive as of that date. However, counsel sought directions to protect the petitioner against arbitrary questioning in the future.
Disposing of the petition, the court directed the investigating agency that if the assistance or presence of the advocate is required during the investigation of FIR No. 198/2026, it must be sought strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Advocate Wani Manzoor appeared for the petitioner, while Assisting Counsel Harris Khan represented the Union Territory administration. (KDC)
