SC to hear suo motu plea on ED summoning lawyers for legal advice on Monday
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria will hear the matter.
New Delhi, Jul 13 (PTI) The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Monday a suo motu case over the issue of investigation agencies summoning lawyers who offer opinions to parties and represent them in cases.
However, on June 20, the ED 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 central probe agency, tasked with combating money laundering crimes, issued the circular for the 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 counsel had offered legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited on the employee stock ownership plan 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.
The bar bodies had urged the chief justice of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.
On June 25, a bench of justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh observed the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice and that allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and was a 'direct threat' to the independence of the administration of justice.
The bench had framed a couple of questions in the matter.
'…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.
Another 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 since it was a matter directly impinging 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'.
The order came when the top court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12.
The high court in March 2025 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.
It said the lawyers engaged in legal practice, apart from their fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, had certain rights and privileges guaranteed as legal professionals and further as a result of statutory provisions.
Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution deals with the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Underlining the issue as important, the bench called for the assistance of the attorney general, the solicitor general, the chairperson of the Bar Council of India, and the presidents of the SCBA and SCAORA.
The top court had asked the apex court registry to place the case files before the CJI for passing appropriate directions. PTI PKS SKY SKY
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Nothing's safe anymore': Pakistani expert admits fear over India's 7,500-kg bunker buster missile that can strike 80m deep
India is reportedly developing a massive conventional missile based on its nuclear-capable Agni-V platform, designed to destroy underground enemy targets like Pakistan's nuclear command centres. The move, inspired by the US's bunker-busting strikes in Iran, has triggered alarm among Pakistani experts, who warn that it dangerously blurs the line between conventional and nuclear warfare. They argue that such a weapon could provoke miscalculation, spark unintended escalation and unravel the fragile logic that's kept South Asia from crossing the nuclear threshold. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A powerful new conventional missile under development in India has left Pakistan visibly uneasy. Designed to strike deep underground targets, the 7,500-kg Agni-V-based bunker buster, capable of reaching hardened nuclear command centres, is already provoking a reaction across the border. A top Pakistani strategic affairs expert has sounded alarm over what she sees as a 'dangerous shift' in India's military doctrine that could upend the region's fragile missile, reportedly under development by India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is an advanced version of the Agni-V ballistic missile platform. Unlike the nuclear-tipped Agni-V, this version is designed to carry a massive conventional warhead capable of penetrating 80 to 100 metres underground, a weapon meant to target deeply buried command centres, missile storage facilities, and other hardened to Indian media reports, the missile will have a reduced range of about 2,500 km, compared to Agni-V's intercontinental reach, due to the heavy warhead. However, its destructive potential remains significant. Two variants are believed to be in the works: one that detonates above ground to strike surface targets, and another designed to bore deep into the earth before exploding — similar in function to the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Agni-5 missile, equipped with bunker-busting capabilities, is tailored to address regional threats. It provides a powerful conventional option to pre-emptively neutralise enemy targets. With the ability to strike deeply fortified underground sites, the Agni-5 helps India effectively counter strategic weapon, if operationalised, would be among the most powerful conventional missiles in the world. Its ability to deliver a devastating payload without crossing the nuclear threshold could offer Indian military planners a new option in the event of a high-stakes across the border, the development is being viewed with growing unease. Writing in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, Rabia Akhtar, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Lahore, warned that such a weapon risks a 'hazardous entanglement' between conventional and nuclear strategies. She argues that a missile capable of destroying command-and-control centres, which may also serve as nuclear command posts, could trigger unintended reported move comes in the wake of the United States' use of similar bunker-busting munitions against Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz in June this year. According to Rabia Akhtar, this demonstration of conventional firepower likely influenced Indian strategic thinking, pushing for a missile that could perform a similar role in the India has not officially commented on the new missile, several Indian defence experts have indicated that it could be aimed at deterring adversaries by holding their most secure military assets at risk, all without using nuclear however, sees a more scary picture. The very idea that a conventional missile could be used to neutralise strategic targets may prompt riskier calculations during a crisis. 'It creates uncertainty around intent,' Akhtar said, adding that Pakistan's early-warning systems might not be able to distinguish a conventional Agni missile from a nuclear one, increasing the chances of an overreaction.
The Print
10 minutes ago
- The Print
China's Brahmaputra dam is also a military asset. It raises alarm for India
In contemporary geopolitics, infrastructure has become a strategic language of its own, one that Beijing is speaking fluently. Beyond the spectacle of scale, the Chinese online discourse quickly turned the project into a symbol of strategic ascendancy. India, the downstream neighbour, is cast as anxious and reactive . China, in contrast, is portrayed as visionary and unyielding—a master of its geography and architect of a new regional order. Chinese Premier Li Qiang, on 19 July, presided over the groundbreaking of what is set to become the world's largest hydropower dam , on the so-called 'Yarlung Zangbo', as China refers to the Brahmaputra River. Within hours, Chinese online platforms erupted in celebration. A Weibo hashtag marking the occasion—#Construction begins on lower Yarlung Zangbo Hydropower Project—amassed over 73 million views. Engineering feat or strategic signal? The Medog Hydropower Station is projected to cost $167 billion and boasts a planned capacity of 70 to 81 million kilowatts, roughly triple that of the Three Gorges Dam. Once completed, it is expected to generate 300 billion kilowatt-hours annually. The project will take a decade to build, but its signalling to the region, especially India, is immediate. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a daily Chinese tabloid, criticised Western media for focusing on India's ecological and geopolitical concerns while ignoring what he called an 'engineering miracle'. For Hu, the dam is not just about electricity; it is also a declaration of China's ability to tame the Himalayas and reshape geography. One Chinese commentator claimed that India's objections stem not from technical concerns, but from its deeply entrenched 'security-first' mindset. New Delhi, the commentator argued, has long prioritised control over collaboration, building its own dams while accusing others of weaponising water. 'India's alarmism,' another wrote, 'comes from its own guilty conscience.' China's dual narrative Officially, Beijing is presenting the dam as a developmental initiative, aimed at energy security, poverty alleviation, regional integration, and transforming Nyingchi into the 'Little Sichuan' or 'Jiangnan of Tibet.' Talk of water weaponisation is being brushed aside as paranoia. Commentators invoke 'non-zero-sum' logic and portray China as a responsible upstream actor. But unofficial voices tell a different story. 'India, which tries to control Pakistan with water cuts, now fears China might do the same,' one commentator quipped. Victor Gao, vice president of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, was even more blunt: 'If India uses rivers as leverage against Pakistan, it should be prepared for reciprocity.' These comparisons are not new. Over a decade ago, Ye Hailin, director of Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued that if India expects restraint from China as an upstream power, it should accept the same standard when Pakistan, downstream of India, makes similar demands. A more recent commentary on Baidu put it less diplomatically: 'Just a month ago, before the official exchange of fire between India and Pakistan, India took the initiative, cutting off water at will, then releasing it, showing little regard for the lives of Pakistani civilians. Faced with a neighbour like India, we [China] must abandon any moral restraint. We should move at our own pace, neither seeking to dominate nor to appease. Stand firm, when necessary, fight when required. Otherwise, we risk being the ones who suffer.' Also read: India's 'triple anxiety'—What Chinese media sees in Jaishankar's Beijing visit Water, border, and politics of control On Chinese social media, the discussion turned openly strategic. One user noted a road built inside the dam tunnels, ostensibly for maintenance, that leads directly to Arunachal Pradesh. 'In peacetime, it is for power,' the user wrote. 'In wartime? I do not need to spell it out.' This is infrastructure envisioned not just as an economic backbone, but as a military asset, both shield and sword. This strategic undertone also helps explain Beijing's long-standing refusal to enter a hydrological data-sharing agreement with India. As Hu Suisheng, senior fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, once noted, such cooperation would implicitly acknowledge India's border position—especially over Arunachal Pradesh, which China disputes. Despite the rhetoric of regional uplift and mutual benefit, India's concerns have been routinely dismissed by the Chinese official narrative and online discourse. There has been no consultation, only unilateral action over a transboundary river system that feeds millions downstream. Beneath China's rhetoric of development flows a deeper current, shaped by quiet force and strategic intent. This is not merely the redirection of water but the rewriting of the regional order through determination and power. For New Delhi, this dam raises alarm. For Beijing, this is advantageous on multiple fronts. Cooperation may be the language used, but the headwaters of the Brahmaputra speak of dominance and unilateral action, not dialogue or mutual benefit. Sana Hashmi is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
New Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Global climate action is at stake in the UN top court's biggest ever decision
THE HAGUE: The UN's highest court is handing down a historic opinion on climate change Wednesday, a decision that could set a legal benchmark for action around the globe to the climate crisis. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in 2023 for an advisory opinion, a non-binding but important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions. First, what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Any decision by The Hague-based court would be non-binding advice and unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said. The United States and Russia, both of which are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
