Today, On 14th July, The Supreme Court will hear a suo motu case on investigative agencies summoning lawyers for giving legal opinions, following ED’s summons to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. CJI Gavai-led bench will hear it.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a suo motu case today regarding the summoning of lawyers by investigation agencies who provide legal opinions and representation to clients.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria will address the issue.
This case arises after the Enforcement Directorate summoned senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.
Also Read: Supreme Court Considers Plea Seeking Clarification on Recording Lawyers’ Names in Cases
The ED, On June 20, instructed its investigating officers to refrain from issuing summons to advocates in money laundering cases, stipulating that exceptions could only be made with prior “approval” from the agency’s director.
The central agency, which focuses on combating money laundering, issued a circular outlining that “no summons” should be sent to any lawyer in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The circular emphasized that if any summons were to be issued under the exceptions stated in the proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, 2023, it must have the director’s prior approval.
The lawyers had provided legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited concerning an employee stock ownership plan related to Rashmi Saluja, the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association condemned the summons, labeling it a “disturbing trend” that undermines the legal profession. They urged the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu cognizance of the situation.
Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh, On June 25, remarked that the legal profession is essential to the administration of justice.
They stated that allowing law enforcement or investigative agencies to directly summon lawyers advising clients could significantly threaten the autonomy of the legal profession and pose a “direct threat” to the independence of justice administration.
The bench posed several questions regarding the issue,
“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?”
Another inquiry was,
“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?”
The bench noted that the matter significantly impacts the administration of justice, indicating that subjecting a professional to questioning while acting as counsel appears “prima facie… untenable, subject to further consideration by the court.”
This development follows a plea from a Gujarat-based advocate contesting a high court order issued on June 12. In March 2025, the high court had declined to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in relation to a case against his client.
Also Read: MHAA Slams ED for Summoning Senior Advocate Arvind Datar Over Legal Opinion
The Supreme Court subsequently directed the state not to summon him until further orders and stayed the enforcement of the police notice against him. The court emphasized that lawyers in legal practice have certain rights and privileges as legal professionals, in addition to their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution, which pertains to the right to practice any profession or engage in any occupation, trade, or business.
Recognizing the importance of the issue, the bench called for input from the attorney general, the solicitor general, the chairperson of the Bar Council of India, and the presidents of the SCBA and SCAORA.
Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed the apex court registry to present the case files to the Chief Justice for suitable directions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
