Supreme Court to hear if lawyers can be summoned by ED for giving legal advice. Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai to take up the matter suo motu.
New Delhi: Today, on July 20, the Supreme Court of India will hear a very important legal matter on Monday, July 21, which deals with whether government investigating agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can summon advocates who give legal advice or represent clients during a case investigation.
The hearing has been taken up suo motu by the Court, meaning it was started by the judges themselves, without anyone filing a petition.
The case is scheduled to be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and includes Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria.
This issue came into focus after the ED summoned two senior lawyers, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, in connection with a case involving legal advice given to Care Health Insurance Limited.
The advice related to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) offered to Rashmi Saluja, who was the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
ALSO READ: ED Issues New Rule: Advocates Can’t Be Summoned Without Director’s Approval
This move sparked a strong debate across the legal community, raising questions about lawyer-client confidentiality and the independence of the legal profession.
Amid growing concern, on June 20, the ED issued a statement saying that it had instructed its officers not to issue summons to any advocate who is involved in a money laundering investigation against their client.
The agency further stated that any exception to this direction can be made only with the “approval” of the ED director.
The ED also issued a circular to guide its officers, saying that no advocate should be summoned in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. As per the ED’s circular:
“No summons” should be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the BSA, 2023.
The agency said,
“Further, if any summons needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, 2023, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the director, ED,”
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) strongly opposed the move to summon the lawyers, calling it a “disturbing trend” that affects the very foundation of legal work in India.
They demanded that the Chief Justice of India take suo motu action to protect the legal profession and ensure lawyers can do their job without fear or interference.
Earlier, on June 25, another bench of the Supreme Court, including Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh, had raised serious concerns about the practice of summoning lawyers.
The bench observed that letting police or investigation agencies directly summon lawyers for simply advising their clients would
“seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession” and is a “direct threat” to the independence of justice administration.
The bench also made an important observation that
“The legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice.”
While hearing the matter, the bench posed two key legal questions:
First,
“When an individual has an association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?”
Second,
“Assuming that the investigating agency or prosecuting agency or police have a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then, should they be directly permitted to summon or should a judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?”
These questions aim to clarify whether legal advice can be used as a basis to summon lawyers, and if so, under what kind of judicial oversight.
The Court was hearing a plea by a Gujarat-based advocate, who challenged a June 12, 2025 order from the Gujarat High Court. In that case, the High Court had refused to cancel a notice issued by police to summon the lawyer in a case involving his client.
The lawyer argued that he was only offering professional advice and had no role in the alleged offence.
While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court stayed the notice issued to the advocate and directed the state authorities not to summon him until further orders.
The bench also asked the Supreme Court registry to present the case before the Chief Justice of India for further directions — a step that has now led to the suo motu hearing on July 21.
The cause list description directly states the issue as:
“IN RE : SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES”,
reflecting the gravity and constitutional importance of the question being raised.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On ED
