SC to hear suo motu case on probe agencies summoning advocates for legal advice
The matter is slated to come up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria.
The case comes in the wake of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.
However, on June 20, the ED said it has directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in money laundering investigations being carried out against their clients, adding that an exception to this rule can only be made after "approval" by the agency's director.
The statement from the federal probe agency came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege-linked controversy that erupted after the ED issued summons to the two advocates for giving legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited on the employee stock ownership plan given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
The ED, tasked with combating money laundering crimes, issued a circular for guidance of its field formations, stating that "no summons" should be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (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 agency said.
The summons issued to these advocates was condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, calling it a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional, upholds block
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump's plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. "The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
CJI Gavai to set up bench to hear justice Varma's plea
Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai on Wednesday said he would constitute a bench to hear the petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, but clarified he would not be part of it. Justice Yashwant Varma (PTI) Justice Varma sought an expedited hearing of his plea challenging the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry panel that concluded there was 'strong inferential evidence' of his 'covert or active control' over a stash of charred cash found at his official residence in Delhi (when he was posted at the Delhi high court) earlier this year. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, mentioned the matter before the CJI and urged for early listing, citing important constitutional issues involved in the case. The CJI agreed but said it would not be proper for him to be part of the hearing bench, given his previous involvement in internal discussions surrounding the case.'I think it will not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was part of that conversation,' remarked the CJI, but assured that a bench would be constituted to take it up. The development comes even as the central government plans to bring an impeachment motion in Parliament to remove Justice Varma from office. As the monsoon session of Parliament is underway and political momentum builds for his removal, 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha lawmakers submitted separate notice in their respective Houses for impeachment of Justice Verma on July 21 – the first day of the current session. As reported first by HT, Justice Varma moved the apex court on July 17, filing a writ petition challenging the May 3 report by a three-member judicial inquiry panel and the subsequent May 8 recommendation by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Terming the panel's report 'unsustainable' and the process 'perverse,' the petition alleged grave violations of natural justice and accused the committee of functioning with an 'outcome-driven approach' based on a 'preconceived narrative.' The panel, Justice Varma said, failed to investigate foundational facts such as ownership, authenticity, and actual recovery circumstances of the charred cash allegedly found on March 14 at his Delhi residence following a fire. While acknowledging that some currency may have been recovered from the outhouse, the judge maintained that further inquiry was essential to establish culpability. Instead, the panel concluded its proceedings hastily, the petition claimed, reversing the burden of proof and placing the onus on the judge to disprove misconduct. The inquiry committee, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka high court), was formed on March 22 and submitted its findings to CJI Khanna on May 3. Justice Varma's petition also challenged the then CJI's May 8 recommendation to Parliament, arguing that it was based solely on an inquiry report that violated constitutional protections afforded to sitting judges. The Supreme Court's May 8 press note confirmed that Justice Varma had submitted a written response to the inquiry report, reiterating his denial of any wrongdoing and terming the allegations a 'conspiracy.' However, the top court noted that the judge had essentially restated his earlier stand. During the in-house inquiry, Justice Varma was divested of all judicial work and transferred back to his parent high court in Allahabad. He was serving on the bench of the Delhi High Court when the Marc 14 incident took place. The 64-page inquiry report cited 'strong inferential evidence' to conclude that Justice Varma had 'covert or active control' over the charred cash. While admitting that no direct evidence linked him to the currency, the panel held that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. 'The burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the money by giving a plausible explanation, which he failed to do, except projecting a flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy,' the report said. The committee concluded that even if the money had been stored without his explicit knowledge, its presence in his official residence 'eroded public trust' and constituted judicial misconduct of a grave nature. As first reported by HT on June 18, Justice Varma had earlier rejected CJI Khanna's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement. In a detailed letter dated May 6, the judge accused the panel of procedural violations and asked the then CJI to reconsider both the process and the outcome. The fire incident at Justice Varma's residence on March 14 triggered the entire sequence of events. According to officials, sacks filled with charred currency notes were found at the outhouse of his Delhi bungalow by firefighters. Chief justice of Delhi High Court flagged the issue to the CJI, leading to the formation of the inquiry panel.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC seeks govt reply on plea for heatwave rules
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Centre and states on a petition seeking nationwide regulations to prevent heatwave deaths involving unorganised workers and children who are the worst sufferers. SC seeks govt reply on plea for heatwave rules A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai issued notice on a petition filed by a Delhi-based lawyer Adil Sharfuddin, who gathered data of heatwave deaths in the past few years from government sources; the data indicated 730 heatwave deaths in 2024. Senior advocate MR Shamshad appearing for the petitioner said that in April this year, the Rajasthan high court took suo motu cognizance of heatwave deaths and urged the Centre to declare a national emergency when it is very hot; that came when several cities in north India were reeling under temperatures above 45 degrees Celsius. Shamshad said that the proceedings in the high court have closed and there is no way to elicit a response from Centre on whether it intends to come out with heat protection regulations with enforceable obligations on employers and the state to provide for flexible work hours, sufficient hydration, shaded areas or rest shelters and medical kits during extreme heatwave days. The petition also sought a Heat Action Plan to be introduced by states to mitigate the effect of heatwave conditions. The bench, also comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, directed the matter to be heard after four weeks. Heatwaves fall within the definition of 'disaster' as per Section 2(d) of the Disaster Management Act, the petition said, and the NDMA, under section 3 of the Act, is mandated to lay down policies, guidelines and plans for reducing risk of heatwave deaths, it added. While NDMA issued non-binding guidelines in 2016 and 2019 on heatwave management, the petition demanded mandatory regulations for uniform compliance across all states.
