PRAYAGRAJ, May 28 -- The Allahabad high court recently observed that lawyers cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution merely for performing their professional duties, stating that prosecuting advocates for giving professional advice "means the end of the profession of law." A division bench comprising justice JJ Munir and justice Tarun Saxena made these observations while quashing criminal proceedings against advocate Samarpan Jain, who was accused of conspiring with his client in a GST case. The court observed: "If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practice under the Advocates Act. It would, indirectly also, deprive the citizens of their right to the much valued right to legal assistance, because a person, who practices the profession of law before defending his client, would be thinking about his own defence and, this he would be thinking about, before he files a vakalatnama and takes steps on behalf of his client." The court emphasised that prosecuting advocates for decisions taken in the course of their professional duties strikes at the root of the legal system and the fundamental right to legal representation. It cautioned against equating professional legal advice with criminal conspiracy, underscoring that holding lawyers liable for actions taken on behalf of clients would undermine both the independence of the Bar and citizens' access to justice. The case originated from the advocate's role in filing appeals on behalf of his client against certain GST assessment orders. While filing the appeals, a mandatory pre-deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax was made by utilising the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available in the client's electronic credit ledger. Advocate Samarpan Jain believed this method was legally permissible. The GST authorities, however, disagreed with this approach. After the appeals were dismissed on maintainability grounds, the deputy commissioner lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging tax evasion and conspiracy. The FIR named not only the assessee but also the advocate for adopting the method of pre-deposit. Consequently, Jain challenged the criminal proceedings before the High Court. The HC, in its order dated May 21, ruled that the criminal proceedings initiated against the advocate were fundamentally flawed and contrary to settled principles of criminal liability. Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR dated October 4, 2025, the charge-sheet, and the cognizance order issued by the Rampur trial court....