Summoning lawyers over client matters threatens administration of justice, says SC
The Court framed two critical questions for consideration: When an individual is involved in a case solely as a lawyer advising a client, can the investigating agency, prosecution, or police directly summon the lawyer? And even if the agency believes the individual's role goes beyond that of legal counsel, should such instances still require judicial oversight before any summons is issued? Emphasizing the seriousness of the matter, the Court underscored that both questions must be addressed comprehensively, as the integrity and efficacy of the administration of justice are at stake
Considering the importance of the matter, the Court ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for appropriate directions.
Meanwhile, the Court granted interim relief to the lawyer who was summoned by the police in Gujarat.
'There shall be a stay on the High Court order and a stay on the operation of summons and any other notices issued to the petitioner,' the Court ordered.
The court order comes just days after a controversy broke out over Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in relation to an investigation involving the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) granted by Care Health Insurance (CHIL) to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
Both summons were withdrawn following strong resolutions issued by Bar associations across the country. In response, the ED also issued a circular directing its officials not to summon advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) had earlier written to Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, urging the Court to take suo motu cognizance of the increasing instances of lawyers being summoned by investigating agencies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
WTC Faridabad promoter Ashish Bhalla proposes refund plan for investors before court
By Abhimanyu Sengupta At least 2,224 people, who had invested in the now-stalled Faridabad World Trade Centre (WTC) project, have been chosen for a refund with a court agreeing to a 'refund and settlement plan' proposed by WTC Group promoter Ashish Bhalla, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in March on charges of cheating and money laundering. On May 22, a Faridabad court – presided over by Judicial Magistrate First Class Anil Kumar – allowed Bhalla to open an escrow account to facilitate settlements to the investors. The court was hearing FIRs lodged on the basis of complaints filed by investors, who have alleged they have not been handed over developed residential plots as promised. According to the FIR, WTC Faridabad Infrastructure Development Private Limited – of which Bhalla was a promoter – lured buyers into investing in a project at Sector 111-114 in Faridabad, promising residential plot allotments. However, the promoters allegedly orchestrated a criminal conspiracy, failing to complete the project and withholding plot deliveries for over a decade. On March 6, the ED attached assets worth Rs 2,300 crore, including land in Faridabad, and arrested Bhalla. It alleged that he, among other things, had diverted investor funds. On April 7, the court permitted Bhalla to submit a 'resolution plan', which he did on April 15. Based on the plan, a six-member committee, chaired by Justice (retd) Rajiv Narain Raina of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was set up to oversee the refund process. On May 8, investors endorsed Bhalla's plan in the Faridabad court. The committee met on May 11, 14, and 18, collecting around 200 consent forms from investors. Claims are still being consolidated and submitted to the court. Since the filing of the FIR last November, of these 2,224 investors, 1,045 have already received the settlement, Bhalla's counsel has informed the court. Investors who consented to the refund and settlement process, however, maintain skepticism. 'Until we get our money back and the committee directly engages with us, we cannot say whether the step is good,' said A K Verma (50), a government employee. 'On an individual basis, we gave our consent for the process. Till it happens, what can we say? We are waiting to get back our hard-earned money,' said SK Gupta, another investor.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't summon lawyers for legal advice: SC
Direct summons by investigating agencies or the police to lawyers for advising their clients can 'shatter the core of legal independence' and constitute a 'serious interference with the administration of justice', the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, as it initiated suo motu proceedings to address the issue and formulate safeguards to protect the legal profession. The development comes just days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued, and subsequently withdrew, summons to two senior Supreme Court advocates, triggering widespread outrage over the perceived breach of lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. (HT Photo) '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 or police to directly summon defence 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,' said a bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh. The development comes just days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued, and subsequently withdrew, summons to two senior Supreme Court advocates, triggering widespread outrage over the perceived breach of lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. The court made strong observations during a hearing involving a Gujarat-based lawyer who was summoned by the police merely for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. The police summons, issued under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the SC/ST Cell in Ahmedabad, was upheld by the Gujarat high court, prompting the top court to stay the order and protect the lawyer from further coercive action. 'Summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence,' maintained the bench, adding that such practices, if allowed to persist, would have a chilling effect on legal professionals and impair the justice delivery system. 'This is not just about one lawyer. It is about protecting the spine of the legal system,' it emphasised. Justice Viswanathan remarked that it was essential to address this issue comprehensively, not just as a one-off incident, but to safeguard the legal profession and preserve the integrity of the justice system. 'Lawyers must be able to advise and represent clients without fear of being summoned or harassed. We are dealing with the very heart of judicial independence and the administration of justice,' the court said. It went on to frame two critical questions -- one, can the police summon a lawyer who has only advised a party in a case; and two, if there is more than advisory involvement, should judicial oversight be a precondition. To ensure a comprehensive and principled resolution, the court sought assistance from the attorney general, solicitor general, chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), and presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The matter has also been referred to Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai for appropriate orders on further listing. 'It is a matter which directly impinges the administration of justice,' the court noted. The top court's intervention comes just days after ED withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal in a separate case. The move followed an urgent representation by SCAORA to the CJI on June 20, flagging the ED's summons as a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. Venugopal, who was summoned to appear before ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on the afternoon of June 20, informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to ED's probe into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. Venugopal, in this instance, was the advocate-on-record for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar. ED had also summoned Datar earlier, but withdrew that notice too amid widespread criticism from the legal fraternity. In its letter to the CJI, SCAORA president Vipin Nair described the summons as 'a deeply disquieting development' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the core of the rule of law and the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated, urging the CJI to frame clear guidelines. The concern was echoed across the legal community. The Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution on June 17 condemning ED's actions as a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also held an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent amendments to the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to safeguard lawyer-client privilege. In a press statement issued on the evening of June 20, ED clarified that the summons had been issued in Venugopal's capacity as an independent director of Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL), not as a legal counsel, and said any further information would be sought through email. Crucially, ED also issued a circular directing all its field offices not to issue summons to advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It mandated that in exceptional cases where the proviso to Section 132 may apply, prior approval from the ED director would be necessary before issuing such summons.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court questions legal basis of stipend for junior lawyers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) raised questions over whether junior lawyers in Maharashtra have a statutory right to receive a monthly stipend, even as it expressed sympathy for their financial struggles. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by twelve junior advocates from Maharashtra seeking a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 for junior lawyers with less than three years of practice and an annual income under ₹1 lakh. While acknowledging the financial hardship faced by junior lawyers, the Court questioned the legal basis for mandating a stipend. 'What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. We agree with you. But principally, who will give this? Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds?' Chief Justice Aradhe asked. He further queried whether the demand served a broader public interest: 'There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?' The petitioners, represented by advocates Ajit Deshpande and Akshay Desai, argued that the stipend would provide crucial financial assistance during the formative years of legal practice, particularly for those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited similar stipend schemes implemented in other states including Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh, and pointed to a Bar Council of India (BCI) recommendation for stipends of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban regions. When the petitioners pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already passed directions in this regard, Chief Justice Aradhe replied, 'Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?' The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), in its response, stated that implementing the scheme would cost approximately ₹155 crore annually — an amount it claimed it cannot afford without state support. The BCMG counsel said, 'Certain states that have these schemes are aided. We can't do that in Maharashtra. We had sent a representation.' The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and directed the parties to return with clarity on whether any statutory provision requires such financial aid for junior lawyers. The petition also proposes that the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund be used to finance the scheme. Filed in 2022, the petition argues for the creation of a permanent stipend scheme to support young advocates through the early, financially unstable years of legal practice. The petition said, 'A survey conducted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy claims that more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across 7 High Courts said that advocates with less than 2 years of legal practice at the Bar earn less than ₹10,000 a month. The survey also showed the disparity in incomes of senior advocates and the entrance of the profession. This reflects the need of the hour to support young lawyers who have not been in a position to sustain themselves.' It also said that the State Government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. 'On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to provide ₹20,000 as a minimum subsistence allowance per month to lawyers who are not financially well off so that they can support their families following the lockdown. But unfortunately, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government,' the petition said.
