In a significant assertion of constitutional protections and the independence of the legal profession, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the immediate release of lawyer Vikas Singh, who was arrested by the Haryana Police’s Special Task Force (STF) in connection with a murder case. The court’s intervention came after Singh contended that his arrest was an abuse of police power, carried out solely because he was representing one of the accused, and lacked any evidence implicating him in the alleged crime.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria passed the order while hearing Singh’s petition. The lawyer argued that his detention violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which guarantee personal liberty and due process. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing himself before the bench, emphasized that the case contained “no admissible evidence whatsoever” against him, and that his arrest was intended to intimidate him for performing his professional duties as a lawyer.
“It is not a case of demanding special privileges for a lawyer but this is a case of no evidence. There is no admissible evidence against him at all. He should be released immediately,” Singh submitted to the court.
Court Observations and Directions
The Supreme Court took note of the submissions and observed that the Haryana STF officials had allegedly arrested Singh without providing written grounds or the presence of independent witnesses—procedures mandated under Articles 21 and 22 for lawful detention. The bench also highlighted that Singh, being a practising advocate, was unlikely to abscond.
In its brief order, the court directed the authorities to release Singh on bail forthwith and issued notice to the state of Haryana to respond to the petition. The Registrar of the Supreme Court was instructed to immediately communicate the order to the concerned authorities in Haryana.
The bench noted:
“It is the contention of the petitioner that (he was arrested) when he reached the police station without written grounds of arrest or independent witnesses, in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. In any case, the petitioner is an advocate by profession and is not likely to flee. We direct the respondent to forthwith release the petitioner on bail.”
Background of Arrest and Legal Controversy
Vikas Singh was taken into custody by the Haryana STF on October 31. The arrest triggered widespread concern and strong reactions within the legal community, leading to a protest by the coordination committee of district courts’ bar associations in Delhi. On November 6, lawyers across all district courts in Delhi abstained from work, denouncing what they described as Singh’s “false implication” and demanding his immediate release.
The arrest followed Singh’s representation of clients allegedly linked to criminal cases, including cases connected to gangster Kapil Sangwan, alias ‘Nandu’. Singh’s petition argued that the authorities misconstrued his professional association with clients as criminal complicity, thereby undermining the independence of the Bar and the fundamental attorney–client relationship.
The lawyer had also filed applications highlighting custodial assault on one of his clients, Jyoti Prakash alias “Baba”, who reportedly sustained a fracture while in STF custody. Singh contended that this representation may have contributed to his targeting by law enforcement agencies.
Legal Precedents Reinforcing the Decision
The Supreme Court’s intervention in Singh’s case comes on the heels of two landmark rulings strengthening constitutional safeguards for accused persons and reaffirming the independence of lawyers.
- Right to Written Grounds of Arrest (November 6, 2025)
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that all accused individuals, regardless of the offence under the Indian Penal Code (now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), must be provided written grounds of arrest. Previously, this safeguard was primarily understood to apply to special statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court clarified that furnishing written reasons is a “mandatory constitutional obligation” flowing from the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and is expressly mandated under Article 22(1). - Attorney–Client Privilege and Independence of the Legal Profession (October 31, 2025)
The same bench, comprising CJI Gavai and Justices Chandran and Anjaria, had earlier reinforced the principle that lawyers cannot be compelled by investigating agencies to disclose details of legal advice given to their clients, except in narrowly defined circumstances explicitly permitted by law and approved at a senior supervisory level. Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) confers this privilege to the client, placing a corresponding duty on the advocate not to reveal confidential communications. The court emphasized that any breach of this privilege without statutory authority would undermine the right to effective legal representation and compromise the administration of justice.
Singh’s petition, filed through advocate Arjun Singh Bhati, sought immediate release and a judicial inquiry into the “illegal actions” of the Haryana STF. The plea also requested the quashing of all proceedings related to the FIR registered at Police Station Sector-8, Faridabad, under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Implications for the Legal Profession
The Supreme Court’s order has been widely perceived as a strong affirmation of the independence of lawyers and the sanctity of the attorney–client relationship. Legal experts note that the case highlights the critical role of the judiciary in preventing misuse of police power, especially against legal professionals engaged in representing clients in sensitive criminal matters.
The incident also reinforces the principle that professional associations with clients cannot be equated with criminal liability, and that law enforcement agencies must operate within the bounds of constitutional safeguards. By ensuring Singh’s immediate release, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the notion that lawyers should be able to perform their duties without fear of intimidation or retaliatory action.
Current Status
As of the court order, Vikas Singh, who has been enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi since July 2019, is to be released from Faridabad jail. The petition lists the Haryana and Delhi governments as well as the Bar Council of India as respondents. With the Supreme Court’s directive, Singh’s release is expected to occur promptly, while the court’s notice to the state of Haryana initiates a process of accountability regarding the circumstances of his arrest.
The legal fraternity continues to monitor the situation closely, with many viewing the judgment as a precedent-setting decision that underscores the balance between law enforcement powers and the constitutional rights of citizens, particularly those in the legal profession.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decisive intervention in the Vikas Singh case underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in protecting fundamental rights, preventing arbitrary arrests, and upholding the independence of the legal profession. By ordering Singh’s immediate release, the court has reaffirmed that legal representatives cannot be penalized or intimidated for performing their duties and that constitutional safeguards remain paramount in the administration of justice.
Leave a Reply