Madras High Court Advocates’ Association condemned the ED’s notice to Arvind Datar, calling it an attack on legal independence. The summons, now withdrawn, sparked nationwide outrage from bar associations.
Chennai: On June 18, the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association (MHAA) has strongly criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for sending a notice to Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar for a legal opinion he gave while doing his professional duty as a lawyer.
In a resolution passed on June 18, the MHAA said that this move by the ED was a direct attack on the freedom of the legal profession and warned that it could set a very bad example for the future.
The Association clearly stated,
“It is a well-established constitutional principle that every individual has a right to legal representation and that advocates are duty-bound to provide legal advice and assistance without fear of persecution or reprisal. Targeting an advocate for giving a professional legal opinion, without any allegation of wrongdoing or unlawful conduct on his part, amounts to an attack on the independence of the Bar.”
They also praised the good reputation of Senior Advocate Datar, calling him a respected lawyer with an honest record.
They added that they support him fully.
“The Association added that it stands in solidarity with Datar and reiterated its ‘unwavering commitment to defend the dignity and independence of the legal profession.’”
This entire controversy started when the ED issued a summons to Datar regarding his legal opinion on an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) that was given to Rashmi Saluja, the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises, by Care Health Insurance.
According to reports, this ESOP was worth more than ₹250 crore and involved the issuing of over 22.7 million stock options.
The ED and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) are now both looking into whether these stock options were granted in line with rules or if they were part of a larger financial wrongdoing.
However, after the backlash, the ED later took back its summons. News reports mention that during the inquiry, Arvind Datar told ED officials that lawyers cannot be forced to appear in investigations about their clients.
He also pointed out that there is something called “professional privilege,” meaning lawyers are not allowed to reveal the legal advice they give to their clients.
This move by the ED not only upset the MHAA but also received criticism from legal associations across the country.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued a statement on June 16 expressing concern.
In their words, “investigative overreach” was becoming a trend and could damage the legal profession and the rule of law. They also said the ED’s action was “unwarranted.”
Similarly, the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) criticised the ED’s move in a resolution passed on June 17, saying,
“Such attempts not only undermine the independence of the profession but also seriously impinge the constitutional rights of being defended by a lawyer of one’s choice and a fair trial.”
The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also held an urgent meeting on June 17 to discuss the issue. Led by its President Brijesh Trivedi, the Association gave a clear and strong message against the ED’s actions, calling it a violation of legal professionals’ independence.
They asked the government to take immediate steps to make laws that protect the confidentiality between lawyers and their clients.
They demanded that this protection be included under both the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
They also called for clear guidelines to make sure that private professional conversations between lawyers and clients are not misused by investigating agencies.
Apart from bar associations, several Senior Advocates and many other lawyers across India also spoke out against the ED’s action.
They said it could badly impact the ability of lawyers to give legal advice freely, without being afraid of getting targeted by authorities.
Read Resolution:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Advocates
