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
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC relists case in which it barred HC judge from hearing criminal cases
New Delhi, Days after the Supreme Court pulled up an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, the Supreme Court relisted the matter for August 8. SC relists case in which it barred HC judge from hearing criminal cases In an unprecedented order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 4 stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge "till he demits office" after he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. According to the top court's causelist, the matter would be heard by the same bench. According to sources, senior judges in the apex court have taken strong exception to the bench's order and even Chief Justice of India B R Gavai was consulted in the matter. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan on August 4 directed removal of criminal matters from the high court judge's roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. The high court judge's order said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the order passed by the high court judge "erroneous", the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable," the bench said. The top court was hearing a challenge to high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In this case, the complainant delivered goods in the form of thread to Shikhar Chemicals worth ₹52.34 lakh of which an amount of ₹47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea of the applicant. On August 4, the top court observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Terming the high court's take on the issue as "shocking", the bench said, "It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order." The order continued, "It was expected of the high court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the high court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit." The bench said in such circumstances it was left with no other option but to set aside the high court order even without issuing notice to the respondents. "We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court ," the top court said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
32 minutes ago
- News18
SC relists case in which it barred HC judge from hearing criminal cases
Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) Days after the Supreme Court pulled up an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, the Supreme Court relisted the matter for August 8. In an unprecedented order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 4 stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge 'till he demits office" after he 'erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. According to the top court's causelist, the matter would be heard by the same bench. According to sources, senior judges in the apex court have taken strong exception to the bench's order and even Chief Justice of India B R Gavai was consulted in the matter. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan on August 4 directed removal of criminal matters from the high court judge's roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. The high court judge's order said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the order passed by the high court judge 'erroneous", the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the 'worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. 'The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable," the bench said. The top court was hearing a challenge to high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In this case, the complainant (Lalita Textiles) delivered goods in the form of thread to Shikhar Chemicals worth Rs 52.34 lakh of which an amount of Rs 47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea of the applicant. On August 4, the top court observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Terming the high court's take on the issue as 'shocking", the bench said, 'It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order." The order continued, 'It was expected of the high court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the high court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit." The bench said in such circumstances it was left with no other option but to set aside the high court order even without issuing notice to the respondents. 'We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court (sic)," the top court said. PTI PKS PKS AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
New Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump delivers a steady stream of wins for his conservative Christian base
In his first half-year in office — amid his tariff campaign, government-slashing moves and immigration crackdown — President Donald Trump has also repeatedly delivered for conservative Christians, who form the bedrock of his Republican support. While he has made overtures to Jewish, Muslim and other religious groups, his Christian supporters have been among his most high-profile surrogates and appointees. The Trump administration has green-lit political endorsements from the pulpit and encouraged religion in the federal workplace. Trump has established faith-focused entities with numerous influential Christian appointees. He's energised supporters with assaults on cultural and academic targets long seen as liberal bastions. His administration and his Supreme Court appointees have expanded areas for religious exemptions and expression in the public square. "We're bringing back religion in our country," Trump contended at a Rose Garden event on the National Day of Prayer in May. His faith adviser, pastor Paula White-Cain, proclaimed that in his administration, faith "has been brought back to where it always belongs, and that is centre." Critics say he's eroding the separation of church and state. "The ones celebrating this are the ones leaning toward this Christian nationalist bent, this ideology that Christians should have dominion over the United States government," said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a progressive Christian group. "A president with a true Christian agenda would be most concerned with uplifting those in our country who have been cast aside," she said. "The most vulnerable among us are not billionaires. Those most vulnerable among us are not these manipulators of Christianity that are seeking nothing but power."
