In the latest development, the Enforcement Directorate has withdrawn with immediate effect the summons issued by it to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal over legal advice tendered to a client.

To recap, on June 18, ED issued summons to Venugopal over legal advice given by him to M/s Care Health Insurance on the ESOP (employee stock ownership) issued to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Dr Rashmi Saluja. Prior to that, similar summons were issued to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar; these were however later withdrawn.

Today, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association wrote to the Chief Justice of India, deploring ED’s action and seeking suo motu cognizance of the issuance of summons to Venugopal. Stating that ED’s action had serious ramifications for “independence of the legal profession” and the “foundational principle of lawyer-client privilege”, the letter requested inter-alia:

(i) examination of the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions tendered in good faith, and

(ii) laying down of appropriate guidelines to prevent any further erosion of lawyer-client privilege and upholding independence of the Bar.

Soon after, ED’s Assistant Director (Mumbai) withdrew with immediate effect the subject summons, as per which Venugopal was directed to appear before the agency on June 24.

The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh. The bench emphasised that the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice. The top court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court.

The bench said, “Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice”. The bench also framed a couple of questions in the matter. “Some of the questions which arise for consideration are: (1) 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?” the bench asked.

The other question read, “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 said these questions require addressal on a comprehensive basis for “what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties”.

The bench said to subject a professional, when he is a counsel in the matter, prima facie appears to be untenable, and subject to further consideration by the court.

The bench said lawyers had certain rights and privileges guaranteed being legal professionals and further, as a result of statutory provisions and sought the assistance of the attorney general, the solicitor general, the chairperson of the Bar Council of India, and the presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates On-Records Association. The bench asked the case papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India BR Gawai for passing appropriate directions.

In the present matter, in March this year, the high court had declined to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in a case against his client. However, the apex court directed the state not to summon him till further orders and put on hold the operation of the police’s notice issued to him. The bench also issued a notice to the Gujarat government.

The bench was informed that an agreement was executed in June last year between two persons in a loan transaction. One of them in February, this year, registered an FIR against the other, following which the accused was arrested.

The top court noted the petitioner before it was engaged as a lawyer by the accused, and he moved a bail application on behalf of his client before a sessions court in Ahmedabad. The accused was granted bail by the court. However, a police notice in March summoned the lawyer to appear before police within three days.

The issue assumes significance as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 20 directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in a money laundering investigation being carried out against their client, adding that exception to this rule could only be made after “approval” by the agency’s director.

The probe agency’s statement came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege-linked controversy stemming from ED’s summons to senior Supreme Court lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The bar bodies urged the CJI Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.

“Counsel, who are engaged in their legal practice apart from their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) 4 of the Constitution of India, have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals and also due to statutory provisions like Section 132 of BSA. Permitting the Investigating Agencies/Prosecuting Agency/Police to directly summon defence counsel or Advocates, who advice parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal provision and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice”, the Bench said.

The Supreme Court order issued today assumes significance as very recently the SCBA, SCAORA, Delhi High Court Bar Association (‘DHCBA’), Bombay Bar Association (‘BBA’) and many other bar bodies condemned the ED for summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Case (‘PMLA’).

President of SCAORA Vipin Nair also wrote to CJI Gavai urging him to take suo motu action against the ED.

Faced with the backlash, the ED decided to withdraw the summons to the senior advocate. It also issued a circular stating that no summons shall be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the BSA, 2023.

“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 circular stated.

Section 132 of the BSA, 2023 protects attorney-client privilege. It provides as follow:

“132. Professional communications.

(1)No advocate, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his service as such advocate, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional service, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such service:

Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure of-(a) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;(b) any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service.(2)It is immaterial whether the attention of such advocate referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1), was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.”

Curated By :

News18.com Edited By: Oindrila Mukherjee

Last Updated: June 25, 2025, 21:57 IST

The SC said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients was a “direct threat” to the independence of justice administration

The SC order came as it was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based lawyer, challenging an HC order passed on June 12. (Image: PTI/File)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised concerns over the probe agencies and police being allowed to summon lawyers for advising clients. It said this can have a “chilling effect” and would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession.

Observing this was a “direct threat” to the independence of justice administration, a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh explained how the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice.

Recommended Stories

“Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice,” the bench said.

The order came when the court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12.

The bench framed a couple of questions in the matter and said it directly impinged on the administration of justice “to subject a professional… when he is a counsel in the matter… prima facie appears to be untenable, subject to further consideration by the court”.

“Some of the questions which arise for consideration are: (1) when an individual has a association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?” the bench asked. “Assuming that the investigating agency or prosecuting agency or police have a case that 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 further said “what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties”.

WHAT IS THE SC ORDER?

The SC was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12.

The high court had refused to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in a case against his client. The top court, however, directed the state not to summon him till further orders and stayed the operation of the police’s notice issued to him.

The bench also issued notice to the Gujarat government, asking for its response. It noted an agreement was executed in June last year between two persons in a loan transaction. In February, one of them got an FIR registered against the other following which the accused was arrested.

The court noted the petitioner before it was engaged as a lawyer by the accused and he moved a bail application on behalf of his client before a sessions court in Ahmedabad. The accused was granted bail. But, a police notice in March summoned the lawyer to appear before police within three days.

WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?

The issue assumes significance as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 20 directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in a money laundering investigation being carried out against their client, adding that exception to this rule could only be made after “approval” by the agency’s director.

The ED’s statement came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy stemming from its summons to senior SC lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The counsel had offered legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited (CHIL) on the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.

The summons were condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), calling it a “disturbing trend” that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession.

top videos View all Swipe Left For Next Video View all

The bar bodies urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.

(With PTI inputs)

About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d… Read More The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d… Read More

First Published: June 25, 2025, 21:57 IST

When an individual is merely involved in a case as a lawyer advising the party, should the investigative agency/prosecution/police directly summon the lawyer?

Assuming the agency has a case in which the individual’s duty is more than just that of a lawyer, should they summon directly, or should a court review be required for such an exceptional situation?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 25, said the prosecuting agencies or police cannot directly summon legal professionals in relation to cases of their clients. The court believes that summoning lawyers directly would undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and pose a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice.The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsels who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions.“Permitting investigating agencies/police to directly summon defence counsel/advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of administration of justice,” the apex court said.Hearing a plea from a lawyer summoned by police in Gujarat in connection with his client’s case, the bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said such a summons would even “constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice.”The Supreme Court bench proposed two questions at this level for comprehensive consideration:“What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties. Since it is a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice, to subject a professional to the beck and call of the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police where he’s a counsel in the matter prima facie appears to be untenable,” the court said.The apex court has sought assistance from the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, SCBA President, Vikas Singh and SCAORA President, Vipin Nair, on the issue.It ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), BR Gavai, for appropriate directions.The case involves a Gujarat-based advocate who was summoned by the police after appearing for his client in a bail case related to a loan dispute. The advocate had no role in the case other than advising his client, and the notice was issued under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to ascertain the true details of the case.Initially, the petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court, but his petition was dismissed.Later, he approached the top court, which restrained the State of Gujarat from summoning the petitioner until further orders.“There shall be a stay on the High Court order and a stay on the operation of the summons and any other notices issued to the petitioner,” the court added.