E-Paper
Legal opinion just advisory, not binding; can’t prosecute lawyers for it: Patna high court
The court pointed out a safeguard embedded in the petitioner's original opinion: the lawyer had explicitly cautioned the bank for independently verification.
Prefer HTon Google
The Patna high court ruled that a legal professional cannot be criminally prosecuted merely for rendering a professional legal opinion to a client.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Rana Vikram Singh in Gopal Krishna Agrawal v. The State of Bihar on Monday, comes as a major relief to lawyers facing blanket and retaliatory criminal actions.
Emphasising the sanctity of fearlessness in the legal profession, Justice Singh said that "the administration of justice requires that an advocate be permitted to discharge his professional duties fearlessly and independently, without the chilling effect of unwarranted subsequent litigation”.
“The maxim ‘Fiat justitia ruat caelum’ underlines that the pursuit of justice must remain paramount; nevertheless, professional protection extends only to bona fide advocacy and does not excuse independent criminal misconduct," the bench observed.
What was the case?
The order came on a case arising out of a 2008 criminal complaint lodged by the Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna, alleging financial irregularities, fabricated title deeds, and criminal conspiracy in the sanction of cash-credit facilities that turned into Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
Although the bank's written report specifically sought action against defaulting borrowers, guarantors, and bank officials, the petitioner—a seasoned panel advocate with over 35 years of standing at the Bar—was also included in the police chargesheet and subsequently summoned by the trial court under various sections of the IPC, including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
Quashing the 2016 cognisance order, Justice Singh held that “In legal terms, ‘legal opinion’ tendered by an Advocate is an expert advisory document, which represents the professional evaluation and interpretation of the law based on the specific facts provided by the client”.
“It does not have any binding effect; rather, it is only of persuasive value for the client to whom it is tendered. It is merely advisory in nature and actually serves as a guided risk assessment, having no evidentiary value in the law. An Advocate can never be penalised for tendering his opinion simply because his opinion turned out to be incorrect or if a court later took a different view of the law,” the bench observed.
Invoking Supreme Court precedents such as CBI v. K. Narayana Rao and Surendra Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that a lawyer owes unremitting loyalty to a client's interests, but cannot be prosecuted for criminal conspiracy or cheating without tangible evidence linking them to an active plan to defraud.
Stern warning against weaponisation of criminal law
The judgment pointed out a crucial safeguard embedded in the petitioner's original opinion: the lawyer had explicitly cautioned the bank to independently verify the documents at its own level before acting.
In a stern warning against the weaponisation of criminal law against professionals, Justice Singh highlighted the broader systemic dangers of allowing such prosecutions to stand.
"A lawyer, being an integral and significant component of the justice delivery system, would not be able to give his professional advice without any fear or favour, if faced with the imminent criminal prosecution for professional advice tendered to his client. The very efficacy of the administration of justice would be at stake," the bench observed.
The court disapproved the trial court's mechanical practice and emphasised that taking cognisance is a solemn judicial act requiring active application of mind, not a clerical formality.
