Privileged communication

2015 PLD 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.9Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.37Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionPrivileged communicationAddress of clientPetitioner was advocate who represented his client before Commissioner Inland Revenue

Investigating authorities summoned petitioner under S.37 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, to obtain information from him with regard to his client

Plea raised by petitioner was that communication between counsel and client was privileged and protected under Art.9(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Validity

Petitioner was called upon to disclose identity of his client because petitioner was engaged by his client in a case and investigating authorities wanted to use that information which petitioner had about his client in furtherance of his investigation

Client did not reveal its identity to investigating authorities in its ongoing investigation, in such a situation identity of client had become privileged communication under Art.9 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Investigating authorities could not use machinery available to them for the purposes of investigation to compel an advocate engaged by a client to disclose whereabouts of his client when the whereabouts and identity of client were under investigation

Investigating authorities could not compel petitioner to disclose identity of his client on the grounds that he was representing his client before some other forum or in some other case

Identity of client was privileged communication under Art.9 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

High Court declared the summons issued in the name of petitioner as illegal

Petition was allowed in circumstances.