SC lawyers controversy: ED directs investigators to not summon advocates in case against clients
The statement from the federal probe agency came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy that erupted after the ED issued back-to-back summons to senior Supreme Court lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for giving legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited (CHIL) on the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said
In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
ED takes lesson from Datar & Venugopal episodes, director's nod now must to summon advocates
The move followed strong condemnation by several associations of lawyers of the ED summons issued to two senior advocates in connection with a money-laundering probe. New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) Friday issued a circular to its officers instructing them not to summon any advocate as part of the investigation, as it could amount to a violation of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). The ED circular, a copy of which has been seen by ThePrint, further said that, in exceptional circumstances, when summons have to be issued, it can only be done after the approval of the agency director. From Section 132, 'it is amply clear that a legal practitioner cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his professional service as such legal practitioner, by or on behalf of his client unless with his client's express consent. However, proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, 2023 has carved out certain exceptions,' said the circular issued by ED's legal wing to field officers. 'In view of the above, it is directed that no summons shall be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132. Further, if any summon needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, the same shall be issued with the prior approval of the Director, ED,' it added. The development comes at a time when the ED has drawn criticism from the legal community over summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in its probe into dealings of Care Health Insurance (CHIL) and its parent company, Religare Enterprises (REL). Both summonses have been withdrawn. In a letter dated 16 June, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association expressed 'strong disapproval' of the summons to Datar and said it reflected 'a disturbing trend of investigative overreach'. ThePrint had earlier reported that the ED has been probing money laundering allegations against these firms, including the transfer of shares worth crores to former CHIL non-executive chairperson and REL executive chairperson Rashmi Saluja despite the request being rejected by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). The former board of CHIL cited an opinion that it had sought from Datar to grant shares to Saluja. According to the ED, Datar said IRDAI's approval was not needed since the shares were being granted in her capacity as an REL employee, and not CHIL. Separately, Venugopal was summoned in his capacity as the former independent director of CHIL to understand the circumstances behind the share transfer, the ED spokesperson said. In a statement Friday, the ED spokesperson said, 'In view of the fact that Shri Pratap Venugopal is a Senior Advocate in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the summons issued to him has been withdrawn and same has been communicated to him. 'In the said communication, it has also been stated that if any documents will be required from him in his capacity as an Independent Director of CHIL, the same will be requested from him to be submitted by email.' (Edited by Sanya Mathur) Also Read: ED's now-withdrawn summons to Arvind Datar: The case, controversy & SC advocates body letter
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
PMLA court grants bail to aide of Dawood's brother
MUMBAI: A special court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has granted bail to Israd Sayyed, an aide of Iqbal Kaskar, the younger brother of fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim, in connection with a money laundering case. Munbai : File photo of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim's brother Iqbal Kaskar who was arrested on Monday night by the crime branch of the Thane Police in connection with an investigation into an extortion case. PTI Photo (PTI9_19_2017_000047B) (PTI) The ED had accused Kaskar and his aides, Israd Sayyed and Mumtaz Shaikh, of being the masterminds behind extortion of money and property from builders, and of being knowingly indulging in laundering of proceeds of crime to the tune of ₹ 78.63 lakh. The extortion complaint had alleged that in 2017, Kaskar and his associates extorted ₹ 30 lakh in cash and a flat worth ₹ 60 lakh in the Neopolis building in Thane from local builder Suresh Jain. Kaskar and his aides allegedly threatened the builder using Dawood's name and took the flat in the name of Mumtaz Ejaj Shaikh alias Raju, a close associate of Iqbal. The builder had filed an FIR at the Kasarvadavali police station, claiming that Kaskar's associates made repeated visits and continued to pressurise him. Based on the FIR, the ED initiated a money laundering investigation on September 26, 2017, and filed a chargesheet in 2022. Sayyed's advocate submitted that he is innocent and has committed no crime. The defence stated that he was acquitted under the original MCOCA case based on which the ED case was registered. Relying on the ground of parity, the defence argued that Kaskar has already been granted bail by the high court in the same case. The prosecution argued that Sayyed cannot avail the ground of parity as he threatened Mehta and extorted one flat and ₹ 20 lakhs from him. The court observed that the role of Sayyed is similar to that of Kaskar, who was released on bail by the high court. The court said that Sayyed is also acquitted in the MCOCA case, which is the predicate offence. The special sessions judge, Mahesh K Jadhav, in an order passed on June 16, said, 'The applicant is also in jail for a long time,' and held that Sayyed is entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity.
