Privacy of every individual must be protected: Gujarat High Court on IT raids against advocate

The privacy of an individual needs to be protected by investigating agencies while enquiring about any case against him or her, the Gujarat High Court said on Monday [Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth vs Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Ahmedabad]..A division bench of Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta made the observation while dealing with a plea challenging income tax (IT) raids on a lawyer.On Monday, the Court questioned the legal basis on which the Income Tax officers of the Ahmedabad Unit raided the house of the petitioner-advocate's associate, a female lawyer, in early morning hours. "How can you visit a lady advocate's house early morning and seize her and her family members' devices. Isn't this violating her privacy? You will have to clarify as to how and under what law could you raid her house like this," Justice Karia observed. .The plea before the Court was filed by advocate Maulikkumar Sheth who highlighted the allegedly high-handed conduct of IT officers who raided his home and office premises on November 3 and continued the same till November 7. During this time, the officers did not let Sheth or his family members step out of their house, the Court was told. It was also submitted that advocate Seth's premises were raided in connection with a document concerning one of his clients. The Court had earlier slammed the income tax officers for their alleged conduct and demanded an explanation. .We are not in a state of Emergency to do what you want: Gujarat High Court slams IT raids on lawyer's office.Yesterday, the bench noted that the officers in their affidavit had failed to properly explain their "raids" and the decision to seize documents from Sheth's possession, which pertained to his clients. "There is not a single line to deal with the contentions and pleadings made in the petition. Only a merry-go-round explanation. You are only running around the bushes. We want to know, how can you stop people from going out of their house? This is unheard of. Why it took four days of search?" Justice Karia questioned the officers who were represented through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkatraman. .To this, the ASG responded that the raids were meaningful and that impeccable information was seized from the petitioner advocate. "But how could you even touch the document related to some other client (whom you are assessing)? You need to understand that privacy of any individual needs to be protected by any agency, at any cost," the Court underscored. .During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Sheth argued that the fundamental rights of his clients to carry out their profession and to move freely were blatantly violated by the officers. "We were not allowed to step out for four days. This amounts to detention. They violated my right to profession, right to liberty. Mine and my family members' privacy was invaded in the manner in which they have conducted the raids. Impounding of devices have breached my rights under Article 19(1)(a)," Rohatgi argued for Sheth. Rohatgi pointed out that the raids commenced in the early morning of November 3 and ended on November 7, late in the evening. "My daughter wasn't allowed to go to her college. But in affidavit they claim that she never requested to go to college. Under what authority can they ask us to make requests? I can say that I was in their custody as my free movement was allowed only within my house as if it was a house arrest," Rohatgi submitted. Further, Rohatgi pointed out that the officers took away hundreds of documents that were not related to the client in question but to hundred other clients. These documents, the senior counsel added, included agreements and other legal documents drafted by Sheth for his clients. He further argued that the officers had gone overboard in their search for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to a client's sale of a property. "For this document, they even raided one of my associate's house early morning. They seized her device and even that of her family members' and later took her to my office and asked her to help search the documents. Isn't this violating rights of people? Isn't this preventive detention," Rohatgi argued. Another senior advocate, also appearing for Sheth, argued that the raid itself was illegal and that the material seized during these raids could not be used. He, therefore, urged the bench to declare the raids illegal. The bench will continue hearing the case on December 19.