SCBA and SCAORA condemn ED’s summons to Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal over legal advice, calling it an attack on lawyer-client privilege. They urge CJI to protect advocates’ independence and uphold constitutional safeguards.
New Delhi: Today on June 20, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) have strongly criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for sending notices to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for simply offering legal advice to their clients.
The two major bar bodies stated that this is a “disturbing trend” which directly attacks the very roots of the legal profession and lawyer-client confidentiality.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Kapil Sibal Wins SCBA President Elections
While the ED has now withdrawn its summons to senior lawyer Arvind Datar, the outrage in the legal community continues. Both the SCBA, led by senior advocate Vikas Singh, and SCAORA, headed by advocate Vipin Nair, expressed their serious objections through official statements.
In a press release issued by the SCBA’s secretary, Pragya Baghel, the bar body said,
“The issuance of such illegal notices and summons to the senior advocates and to the advocate-on-record reflect a disturbing trend, striking at the very foundations of the legal profession and undermining the independence of the Bar which is a core pillar of India’s Constitutional democracy.”
The SCBA further said,
“Independent judiciary and independent bar are the backbone of the democracy and if advocates or senior advocates are targeted in such manner then it is hitting the independence of the legal profession in its root.”
Vipin Nair, president of SCAORA, also addressed this serious issue in a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), B R Gavai.
He called it a “deeply disquieting development” that poses “serious ramifications for the independence of the legal profession and the foundational principle of lawyer-client confidentiality.”
This strong reaction followed after senior advocate Pratap Venugopal received a notice from the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The summons was issued as part of an investigation into the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) granted by Care Health Insurance Ltd.
ALSO READ: SCBA Election Reforms || Justice L Nageswara Rao Committee Invites Lawyers’ Inputs
The ED claimed the notice was regarding a legal opinion given by Arvind Datar, which supported the ESOP grant to Rashmi Saluja, the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. Venugopal was the advocate-on-record in the matter.
Nair’s letter stated,
“It has come to our notice that senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, has received on June 19, summons dated June 18, by ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in its investigation into the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) granted by M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd for a purported legal opinion rendered by senior advocate Arvind Datar, wherein Pratap Venugopal, was the advocate-on-record, supporting the grant of stock options to former Religare enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja.”
Section 50 of the PMLA gives the ED power to summon individuals, demand documents, and gather evidence in connection with investigations. The notice asked Venugopal to appear before the ED on June 24.
Nair added,
“It would be imperative to mention that a similar notice was earlier issued by the ED to senior advocate Arvind Datar, albeit withdrawn subsequently.”
Nair also emphasised Venugopal’s long-standing service to the legal profession, describing him as someone with “impeccable” sincerity and professional ethics.
He further wrote,
“These actions, by the ED, we believe, amount to an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct lawyer-client privilege, and pose a serious threat to the autonomy and fearless functioning of advocates. Such unwarranted and coercive measures against senior members of the bar for discharge of professional duties set a dangerous precedent, potentially resulting in a chilling effect across the legal community.”
The SCAORA stressed that giving legal advice is part of a lawyer’s protected and privileged role. According to the association, if investigation agencies interfere in this relationship without valid reasons, it violates basic legal principles and the rule of law.
The bar body cautioned that this may discourage advocates from giving honest and independent advice.
The SCAORA said in its letter,
“The interference of investigative agencies into this relationship without just cause and contrary to established legal norms, struck at the heart of the rule of law.”
It further warned,
“Such interventions could dissuade advocates from rendering honest, independent opinions in the discharge of their duties.”
Therefore, SCAORA urged the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu (on his own) action and examine the legality and fairness of such ED summons issued to lawyers for merely giving legal advice in good faith.
In their appeal to the CJI, SCAORA also asked the court to look into
“the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions rendered in good faith” and called for the court to examine ways of “safeguarding the constitutional and professional protections afforded to advocates” while also “laying down appropriate guidelines to prevent any further erosion of lawyer-client privilege and uphold the independence of the bar.”
This is not the first time ED has summoned a lawyer in the case. Earlier, a similar notice was served to Arvind Datar, which was later withdrawn by the agency. Yet, these repeated actions have raised serious concerns in the legal community.
The SCBA in its statement said,
“Every person has a right for a legal representation and thus, advocates cannot be targeted for rendering his assistance and giving legal opinion.”
They also mentioned that under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, advocates are protected by professional privilege and cannot be summoned merely for legal advice.
The SCBA firmly stated,
“Advocates are officers of the court, and their role is integral to the fair and impartial administration of justice. The manner in which the Enforcement Directorate has sought to summon respected members of our Bar reflects an illegal, perverse and intimidatory use of state power.”
Click Here to Read More Reports on Rape Case
