SC agrees with petitioner on attorney-client privilege
NEW DELHI: The
, which on Wednesday stayed Gujarat police SC/ST cell's notice to the advocate of an accused to appear as a witness, framed two preliminary questions: "When an individual is associated with a case only as a lawyer advising the parties, would the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning? Assuming that the probe agency/police have a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then, should they be directly permitted to summon, or should there be a judicial oversight be prescribed?"
Advocate Siddharth S Dave, appearing for the lawyer who was summoned by Gujarat police, told the court that the lawyer was only discharging his professional duty by appearing for the accused and was in no way involved with the offence alleged against his client.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"The communication between the lawyer and his client is protected against disclosure by Section 132 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and, hence, police cannot inquire into the communication nor can the advocate be summoned even as a witness," Dave said.
The bench agreed and said, "Legal profession is an integral part of administration of justice. Lawyers have certain rights and privileges guaranteed by statute because of the nature of their profession."
"Permitting investigating agencies/police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates, for the advice rendered by them to a client or an accused, will seriously undermine their autonomy and could even constitute a threat to the independence of administration of justice," the Supreme Court bench further added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will reclaim Gachibowli land, asserts Telangana CM Revanth Reddy; says area will be used for IT development & job creation
HYDERABAD: Chief minister A Revanth Reddy on Saturday took a defiant stand on the Kancha Gachibowli land controversy and and said his govt would reclaim the entire land, spanning over 400 acres. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Certain individuals are creating obstacles, but the govt will pursue the issue legally and reclaim the land," he said without specifically mentioning 'Kancha Gachibowli'. Inaugurating the six-lane PJR flyover in Kondapur, spanning 1.2 km, he said, "We will establish IT companies on the land and generate lakhs of jobs. The Financial District has already created nearly 10 lakh jobs, while the Knowledge Park near Durgam Cheruvu has generated an additional five lakh jobs. We planned to create five lakh more jobs with Rs 1 lakh crore investment across 400 acres near Gachibowli stadium, but faced hurdles from certain quarters. " He added the land had been wrongly allocated to private parties in 2002-03. What has Modi done for Hyderabad, asks Revanth Revanth said, "But we successfully contested the claim in the Supreme Court and reclaimed it for the state govt after two decades." Controversy around Kancha Gachibowli started in Feb after the state govt announced plans to clear the land for development projects. The move met with stiff opposition from environmentalists and University of Hyderabad (UoH) student groups who alleged that damaging the forest flora and fauna would fuel the climate crisis. The issue had reached up to the Supreme Court which warned the state govt against clearing the forest. Addressing the gathering after inaugurating the flyover, Revanth challenged Union minister G Kishan Reddy and BJP's eight MPs in Telangana to explain Prime Minister Narendra Modi's contribution to the city. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Bengaluru, Chennai, and Andhra Pradesh were sanctioned metro rail projects," he said. "Gujarat was given a bullet train worth Rs 2 lakh crore. Telangana faces unequal treatment in riverfront development funding. While Sabarmati in Gujarat, Yamuna to Delhi, and Ganga to Uttar Pradesh got funds, our Musi riverfront remains unfunded." Hyd vying with NY, Tokyo "I made a personal visit to Kishan Reddy's home and invited him to join us. We will call on Amit Shah during his upcoming visit to the city to seek approvals for our Metro project, regional ring road, and Musi River development initiatives," said Revanth Reddy. He said Hyderabad aspired to compete with New York and Singapore, not just Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore, and Mumbai. "Despite political hindrances in urban development, the administration continues to implement the Telangana Rising 2047 plan," he insisted. "While Delhi struggles with air pollution, Chennai faces flooding issues, and Bengaluru grapples with traffic congestion. These conditions offer valuable insights for Hyderabad's development. We are preparing plans in the next 100 days to address growing pollution concerns and plan to implement initiatives like replacing diesel buses with 3,000 electric buses, permitting electric and CNG autos, and offering complete tax exemption for EVs," Revanth said. Future City project In a review meeting with industries minister D Sridhar Babu, the CM directed officials to expedite land acquisition for the proposed Future City project. "No investor or industrialist seeking land for data centres should leave empty-handed," the CM said. "The department should prepare a 100-day action plan to create a favourable ecosystem for GCCs," he said.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
After decades in the US, Iranians arrested in Trump's deportation drive
The department "has been full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and violent extremists that illegally entered this country, came in through Biden's fraudulent parole programs or otherwise,' spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said of the 11 arrests. She didn't offer any evidence of terrorist or extremist ties. Her comment on parole programs referred to President Joe Biden's expanded legal pathways to entry, which his successor, Donald Trump, shut down. Russell Milne, Kashanian's husband, said his wife is not a threat. Her appeal for asylum was complicated because of 'events in her early life," he explained. A court found an earlier marriage of hers to be fraudulent. But over four decades, Kashanian, 64, built a life in Louisiana. The couple met when she was bartending as a student in the late 1980s. They married and had a daughter. She volunteered with Habitat for Humanity, filmed Persian cooking tutorials on YouTube and was a grandmother figure to the children next door. The fear of deportation always hung over the family, Milne said, but he said his wife did everything that was being asked of her. 'She's meeting her obligations," Milne said. "She's retirement age. She's not a threat. Who picks up a grandmother?' While Iranians have been crossing the border illegally for years, especially since 2021, they have faced little risk of being deported to their home countries due to severed diplomatic relations with the US. That seems to no longer be the case. The Trump administration has deported hundreds of people, including Iranians, to countries other than their own in an attempt to circumvent diplomatic hurdles with governments that won't take their people back. During Trump's second term, countries including El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have taken back noncitizens from the US. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for several deportations to South Sudan, a war-ravaged country with which it has no ties, after the justices allowed deportations to countries other than those noncitizens came from. The US Border Patrol arrested Iranians 1,700 times at the Mexican border from October 2021 through November 2024, according to the most recent public data available. The Homeland Security Department reported that about 600 Iranians overstayed visas as business or exchange visitors, tourists and students in the 12-month period through September 2023, the most recent data reports. Iran was one of 12 countries subject to a US travel ban that took effect this month. Some fear ICE's growing deportation arrests will be another blow. In Oregon, an Iranian man was detained by immigration agents this past week while driving to the gym. He was picked up roughly two weeks before he was scheduled for a check-in at ICE offices in Portland, according to court documents filed by his attorney, Michael Purcell. The man, identified in court filings as 'SF', has lived in the US for over 20 years, and his wife and two children are US citizens. SF applied for asylum in the US in the early 2000s, but his application was denied in 2002. His appeal failed but the government did not deport him and he continued to live in the country for decades, according to court documents. Due to 'changed conditions' in Iran, SF would face 'a vastly increased danger of persecution' if he were to be deported, Purcell wrote in his petition. 'These circumstances relate to the recent bombing by the United States of Iranian nuclear facilities, thus creating a de facto state of war between the United States and Iran.' SF's long residency in the US, his conversion to Christianity and the fact that his wife and children are US citizens 'sharply increase the possibility of his imprisonment in Iran, or torture or execution,' he said. Similarly, Kashanian's daughter said she is worried what will happen to her mother. 'She tried to do everything right,' Kaitlynn Milne said.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
What's Next For Birthright Citizenship After US Supreme Court Ruling
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. "It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief," said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to "act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases "challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order." Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. "Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. "By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear."
