The Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case on the issue of investigative agencies summoning advocates over their legal opinion given to clients.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India started a suo motu (on its own) case to examine an important legal issue: whether government investigation agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can summon lawyers who are only giving legal advice or representing people accused in criminal cases.
This serious matter will be heard by a special Bench of the Supreme Court on July 14, 2025, which will be headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria.
This case comes just after a recent incident where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had sent legal summons to two well-known Senior Advocates—Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. These summons were related to an ongoing ED investigation into a major stock option issue involving over Rs 250 crore.
The case under investigation is about Care Health Insurance granting more than 22.7 million Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) to Rashmi Saluja, the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. The total value of these ESOPs is said to be more than Rs 250 crore.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had earlier given a legal opinion that supported the issuing of these ESOPs. At the same time, Pratap Venugopal was involved in the matter as the Advocate-on-Record.
Soon after, the ED sent summons to both these senior lawyers for questioning in this case. However, after strong public backlash and protest from legal groups across the country, the ED withdrew the summons.
Due to this controversy, many top bar associations and lawyers raised concerns that such actions by investigating agencies were against the legal rights and independence of advocates. After the backlash, the ED quickly took corrective action.
In an official response, the Enforcement Directorate issued a new internal circular that told all its regional and field offices to not issue summons to advocates unless it follows proper legal rules under Section 132.
The ED also clarified that in special or exceptional situations, where they feel it’s absolutely necessary to summon a lawyer, such a decision can only be approved by the Director of the ED.
CASE TITLE:
In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues
SMW(Cal) 2/2025
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Suo Motu Cases
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
