Supreme Court questions probe agencies' direct summons to lawyers
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) deprecated investigating agencies directly summoning lawyers in relation to professional advice or help provided to their clients, saying the practice will imperil the autonomy of the legal profession.
'What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties… Permitting investigating agencies/police to directly summon defence counsel/advocates who advice parties in a given case would seriously undermine autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to independence of administration of justice,' a Bench headed by Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed.
The court framed two questions for it to consider, including whether the probe agencies could directly summon and question lawyers on the professional advice rendered to their clients. Even if the role of an individual was more than that of a lawyer, the court asked if agencies could issue summons or should there be some judicial oversight.
The Bench has referred the issue to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai for directions. It has also sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association president Vipin Nair and Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Vikas Singh.
The Bench noted that advocates have statutory protection to perform their job without fear as they act as the court's officers.
'Legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsel engaged in legal practice have rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions,' the Bench remarked.
The court was dealing with a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate who was summoned by the police after securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. The High Court had stayed the summons.
'This is not just about one lawyer. It is about protecting the legal system. Such summons is prima facie untenable,' the court noted.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had recently issued summons to two senior advocates of the Supreme Court, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, in relation to their professional roles as lawyers in a case. The ED had later withdrawn the summons. The ED summons had created a furore within the legal community with the advocates' association, including SCAORA, urging the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu cognisance of the issue.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Is the ED Undermining the Constitution by Targeting Lawyers?
Published : Jun 25, 2025 14:29 IST - 8 MINS READ There are some principles so deeply woven into the fabric of a constitutional democracy that to question them seems absurd. One such well-established principle that lies at the foundation of fair legal systems is the advocate-client privilege, recognised as early as the 16th century. One of the earliest recorded English cases involving legal privilege was Berd v. Lovelace Ch., Cary 62, 21 33 (1577). A solicitor named Thomas Hawtry was served a subpoena to testify in a case he was professionally involved in. As it turned out, Hawtry had 'received several fees of the defendant', making him not just a witness, but the legal adviser to one of the parties. Interestingly enough, privilege was already assumed to be established practice by this time and certain communications made in confidence between advocates and clients were not to be disclosed in evidence in judicial proceedings without the client's consent. As such the English Court of Chancery refused to compel his testimony and he could not be deposed. The rationale was ethical, not constitutional: advocates were 'gentlemen' who should not betray confidences. The advocate had a 'duty of honour'—an early form of what we now call legal ethics. Privilege: a bedrock of justice Over time, in the 19th century, legal privilege transformed from an advocate's ethical duty to a client's legal right. For an adversarial legal system, this shift was essential, as otherwise the entire justice system would be compromised. This modern principle became settled law after the landmark judgment of Lord Selborne, L.C. in Minet v. Morgan ((1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 361.) which clarified that legal professional privilege will attach to confidential communications that were made either with reference to existing or contemplated litigation, or for the purpose of obtaining professional legal advice. Soon thereafter, legal privilege came to be rooted in constitutional protections in various jurisdictions, notably in countries with common law system that inherited British traditions like the US, Canada, Australia, and India, as an accused person's right against self-incrimination. Without this protection, individuals would be trammeled by the apprehension that a frank disclosure of facts to their counsel may somehow be subject to being used against them, thereby compromising their access to justice. Also Read | The Supreme Court just made it harder for women to become district judges Constitutional protection Section 132(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the earlier sections 126–129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, recognise and afford privileged status to communications between advocates and their clients. A corresponding obligation is also cast on advocates not to reveal privileged communications under the rules of the Bar Council of India. However, this privilege is not a mere statutory protection, rather it is one of the fundamental rights located in Article 20(3) of the Constitution as an accused person's right against self-incrimination. If an individual's discussions with their legal counsel were to be permitted to be subpoenaed in investigation, they will be unable to seek robust legal advice, and rely on counsel without fear that it might become criminal evidence. Without this protection, individuals would be caught between a rock and a hard place having to risk sound legal counsel over incriminating themselves. Therefore, this privilege and right essential for fair functioning of the criminal justice system protects the individual or client, and really belongs to them and not to their advocate. It is the thread that ties individual liberty to constitutional protections and if the space for such privilege collapses, it would jeopardise every citizen's fundamental right against self-incrimination, fair defence, due process, and equality before law. Summoning senior advocates The protections that our Constitution affords, both civil and criminal, to all citizens of the country are dependent on the aid of those skilled and trained in the law. Without these protections, individuals would hesitate to seek legal advice as disclosure of any facts and thoughts could become evidence to be used against them. Equally, this privilege is incumbent on the advocate to protect the confidentiality of their clients. Therefore, the maintenance of confidentiality in the relationship between an advocate and client is an essential thread to the effective operation of the legal system. Yet, in a deeply troubling trend, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has begun to fray that thread—by summoning Senior Advocates under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for rendering legal opinions to clients in the normal course of their professional work. The summons do not accuse the Senior Advocates of criminal complicity. Instead, they are expected to justify the legal opinions they offered, sometimes years prior, to clients who are now under investigation. When investigating agencies summon advocates rendering legal advice, it sets a dangerous precedent, eroding trust in the legal process and damaging professional independence. In a country governed by rule of law, legal privilege protects the fundamental rights of the citizens forming a crucial and indispensable cornerstone of justice. Such actions undermine this essential legal scaffolding and strike at the core of how justice is supposed to function in a society governed by rule of law. Be you ever so high, the law is above you The summons issued to Senior Advocates early in June were withdrawn by the ED. The ED issued a press release dated June 20, clarifying its position on not issuing summons under money laundering investigations to advocates without adhering to legal privilege. Further, it clarified that if any summons need to be issued under the exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director of the ED. Two things emerge: one, the two summons were issued in violation of Section 132 of the BSA, otherwise they would not have been withdrawn; two, if summons need to be issued under the exceptions to the said provision, they shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director of the ED. However, this requirement of prior approval of the Director is a check introduced by the ED and has no statutory backing. Thus, it will remain merely a guideline issued in a press release by the ED for its officers, and any summon issued by an officer without seeking permission of the Director would only lead to internal action and have no recourse in a court of law. As far as advocates are concerned, they cannot be summoned for investigation in a case where they have rendered professional services, because they are statutorily protected by Section 132 of the BSA. To pierce this protection casually, without strong evidence of wrongdoing, is to play with constitutional fire. Such privilege and protection is a pillar of rule of law, and in any society governed by the rule of law, advocates are more than service providers. They are officers of the court, defenders of liberty, and key intermediaries between citizens and the state. The selective use of summons against advocates, particularly those representing clients involved in politically sensitive or high-profile matters, creates patterns of discriminatory enforcement that violate the guarantees of Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) of the Constitution. These rights extend to both advocates and clients, whose access to free and fair legal representation becomes chilled when their counsel is subject to coercive scrutiny. A criminal court ought to reject any evidence that has come into existence solely for the purpose of being used in pending or anticipated litigation, where such evidence was extracted in derogation of legal privilege and without the consent of the person entitled to it. Admitting such material would subvert the court's procedure and would violate Article 20(3), which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves thus eroding the very nature of adversarial litigation. This erosion is not merely procedural, it is profoundly constitutional and threatens to dismantle the bulwarks of constitutional protection through procedural shortcuts. Jurisprudence and common law conceptions frame advocate-client privilege not as confined to a specific legal proceeding, but as rooted in the broader principle of preserving confidentiality. The very term 'confidentiality' is derived from the Latin word confidere—to trust, to have faith. That trust is the lifeblood of any functioning legal system. The ability of individuals and enterprises to seek legal advice freely, fearlessly, and without apprehension of state retaliation or compelled disclosure, is indispensable. If either the client or the lawyer could be compelled to reveal what passed between them in confidence, the rule of law itself would be hollowed out. While legal privilege and confidentiality are separate concepts, confidentiality is intuitively a form of privacy and an individual's right to privacy is firmly established as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also Read | Is Supreme Court exceeding its bounds by restricting Governors' authority on State Bills? What emerges from our legal tradition, as well as from comparative constitutional jurisprudence, is clear: advocate-client privilege is not a transactional convenience or a lawyer's prerogative. It is a constitutional mechanism designed to protect the fairness of the legal process itself. The law recognises that privilege is not a technicality; it is a constitutional shield woven from the principles of equality, dignity, privacy, and due process. It ensures that individuals and entities can access legal advice without fear that their words will later be used against them. The sanctity of that relationship is rooted in trust, and that trust is in turn protected by a constellation of constitutional rights. If this shield is weakened through selective enforcement or speculative invocation of enforcement powers, it is not merely the lawyer or the client who suffers—it is the very idea of justice that is compromised. Rushda Khan is a financial crimes lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti seeks reconstitution of border dispute expert panel, requests appointment of Jayant Patil as chairman
Kolhapur: Belagavi-based Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (MES), a forum advocating for the incorporation of Marathi-speaking regions in Karnataka into Maharashtra, has called for the reconstitution of the expert group and the appointment of former minister and NCP (SP) state president Jayant Patil as its chairman. Maharashtra govt recently reconstituted the high-powered committee chaired by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, including representatives from all political parties. Established in 2004, the high-powered committee formed an expert group in 2007, led by member N D Patil, to coordinate between MES, Maharashtra's lawyers in the Supreme Court, and the committee. N D Patil visited the border areas, collected necessary documents, interacted with Maharashtra govt and lawyers, and assisted in building the case. Prakash Margale, treasurer of MES, told TOI, "We have passed the resolution demanding the reconstitution of the expert group and appointment of Jayant Patil as its chairman for two reasons — he led the experts group for nearly two years after the demise of N D Patil, and he is a senior politician who can be accessible and also is part of the high-powered committee." Following the collapse of the Maha Vikas Aghadi govt, Mahayuti govt, led by then chief minister Eknath Shinde, appointed Shiv Sena's Hatkanangle MP Dhairyasheel Mane as head of the expert body. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo After the formation of the new govt, the high-powered committee was established, and the constitution of the expert group is pending. Margale added, "The last hearing over the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute took place in 2014; however, since then, no hearing has been conducted due to Covid and other reasons. We want the high-powered committee to ask lawyers to request the SC to conduct regular hearings over the dispute and give a verdict."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC declares demolition of community centre in Cuttack dist ‘illegal'
Cuttack: Terming the act as an instance of 'bulldozer justice', Orissa high court has declared the demolition of a community centre in Balipur village under Athagarh tehsil in Cuttack district illegal and ordered to provide a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the youth association which was managing the facility. The structure stood on 0.05 acres of gochar (grazing) land and had served vital public functions, including holding health camps, awareness drives and govt outreach programmes. The demolition, carried out in an encroachment case by revenue authorities on Dec 14 last year was allegedly executed without giving the villagers or the youth association adequate time to seek legal redress. The community had even offered to exchange homestead land for the portion used, but their pleas were apparently not heard. The association filed a petition in HC seeking a direction to declare the demolition of the structure as illegal, order its reconstruction at govt expense, award compensation for loss and initiate proceedings against officials responsible for it. Justice S K Panigrahi, in his June 20 judgment, observed that it is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. The judgment criticised the haste shown by the tehsildar, who acted in violation of Supreme Court guidelines and subsisting judicial orders. Of the Rs 10 lakh compensation awarded, Rs 2 lakh will be recovered in instalments from the salary of the tehsildar, citing his direct role in the demolition. The remaining Rs 8 lakh is to be paid by the state govt within eight weeks, Justice Panigrahi specified in his order. He also directed the initiation of departmental proceedings against the tehsildar and mandated the chief secretary and revenue secretary to ensure compliance. Further, the chief secretary has been instructed to issue comprehensive guidelines for all revenue and municipal officials, aligning with the SC's directives to prevent future violations of this nature.
