logo
#

Latest news with #Article14

Lawyers merely giving legal opinion to clients who are under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC
Lawyers merely giving legal opinion to clients who are under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC

Hindustan Times

time17 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Hindustan Times

Lawyers merely giving legal opinion to clients who are under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC

New Delhi, If a person is merely acting as a lawyer, then he should not be summoned by probe agencies for rendering legal opinion to a client who is under investigation, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. Lawyers merely giving legal opinion to clients who are under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC If any lawyer "is assisting the client in the crime", then he can be summoned, it said. The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while hearing a suo motu case about summoning of advocates by probe agencies for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations. 'We have said in the beginning itself that if somebody is assisting the client in the crime, then he can be summoned… but not merely for giving legal advice,' the bench said. The bench heard submissions on the issue from bar bodies the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association , represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh and lawyer Vipin Nair. At the outset, Singh, also the SCBA President, voiced concern over the "chilling effect" that "arbitrary summoning" could have on the legal profession. 'If lawyers can be routinely summoned for advising clients, no one will dare provide counsel in sensitive criminal cases,' he said, adding that safeguards similar to those followed by the CBI should be implemented. He proposed that permission for summoning a lawyer should come from the Superintendent of Police of a district and then be scrutinised by a judicial magistrate before issuance. The bench indicated that judicial oversight could serve as a crucial check on investigative overreach. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, agreed with the core premise that lawyers should not be summoned merely for offering legal advice. He emphasised that the privilege of communication between a lawyer and a client must be respected. 'The profession itself is protected under the proviso,' he said, but cautioned against introducing measures that could result in inequality. 'A magistrate's permission only for summoning lawyers, not non-lawyers, may violate Article 14,' the law officer said. Referring to earlier incidents when senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned, the law officer said that any misuse of authority was promptly addressed. 'Within six hours of the complaint, the action was withdrawn,' he said. The law officer said that before any summons is issued, the ED Director can personally review the matter to avoid misuse. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi added another dimension by highlighting the status of in-house counsel, a category often caught in the crosshairs without sufficient protection. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra raised the issue of fees paid for legal opinions and said that lawyers may not be aware whether their fees were paid from the alleged proceeds of the crime. Another senior lawyer, Shoeb Alam, referred to the freezing of accounts of a reputed law firm, saying that fees received for legal services should be presumed bona fide. The counsel appearing for the SCAoRA stressed the principle of 'class privilege' and invoked the legal doctrine of client-lawyer confidentiality. 'If we are required to explain our advice, it amounts to self-incrimination,' a counsel argued. The solicitor general said a reputed law firm should not be casually named. Referring to a specific case, the solicitor general said, 'A fugitive claimed that all his documents were with a particular firm. We were told to go collect them. Lawyers must be protected, but assistance should be governed strictly by well-established legal provisions.' The bench directed that written suggestions submitted by SCBA and SCAoRA be forwarded to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General within three days. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on August 12, when the Centre will respond. Earlier, the top court had said that ED was "crossing all limits" and expressed serious concern over the agency summoning advocates for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations. It also called for guidelines on the matter. 'The communication between a lawyer and the clients is privileged communication and how can the notices be issued against them… they are crossing all limits,' the CJI had said. 'Guidelines should be framed,' he said while responding to submissions that recent ED notices to legal professionals like senior advocate Datar could have a chilling effect on the practice of law. On June 20, the ED said it had directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in money laundering investigations being carried out against their clients. An exception to this rule can only be made after "approval" by the agency's director, it added. 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 , 2023. The issuing of summons to these advocates was condemned by the SCBA and the SCAoRA, which called the move a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession. The bar bodies had urged the CJI to take suo motu cognisance of the matter. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Lawyers giving legal advice can't be summoned by probe agencies: Supreme Court
Lawyers giving legal advice can't be summoned by probe agencies: Supreme Court

Time of India

time17 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Time of India

Lawyers giving legal advice can't be summoned by probe agencies: Supreme Court

If a person is merely acting as a lawyer, then he should not be summoned by probe agencies for rendering legal opinion to a client who is under investigation, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. If any lawyer "is assisting the client in the crime", then he can be summoned, it said. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Product Management Project Management MCA Operations Management Finance Healthcare CXO Artificial Intelligence Leadership MBA Digital Marketing Data Science Others PGDM Data Science Degree Management others healthcare Technology Cybersecurity Design Thinking Public Policy Skills you'll gain: Product Strategy & Roadmapping User-Centric Product Design Agile Product Development Market Analysis & Product Launch Duration: 24 Weeks Indian School of Business Professional Certificate in Product Management Starts on Jun 26, 2024 Get Details The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while hearing a suo motu case about summoning of advocates by probe agencies for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 32 Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo "We have said in the beginning itself that if somebody (lawyer) is assisting the client in the crime, then he can be summoned... but not merely for giving legal advice," the bench said. The bench heard submissions on the issue from bar bodies -- the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association (SCAoRA), represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh and lawyer Vipin Nair. Live Events At the outset, Singh, also the SCBA President, voiced concern over the "chilling effect" that "arbitrary summoning" could have on the legal profession. "If lawyers can be routinely summoned for advising clients, no one will dare provide counsel in sensitive criminal cases," he said, adding that safeguards similar to those followed by the CBI should be implemented. He proposed that permission for summoning a lawyer should come from the Superintendent of Police of a district and then be scrutinised by a judicial magistrate before issuance. The bench indicated that judicial oversight could serve as a crucial check on investigative overreach. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, agreed with the core premise that lawyers should not be summoned merely for offering legal advice. He emphasised that the privilege of communication between a lawyer and a client must be respected. "The profession itself is protected under the proviso," he said, but cautioned against introducing measures that could result in inequality. "A magistrate's permission only for summoning lawyers, not non-lawyers, may violate Article 14," the law officer said. Referring to earlier incidents when senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned, the law officer said that any misuse of authority was promptly addressed. "Within six hours of the complaint, the action was withdrawn," he said. The law officer said that before any summons is issued, the ED Director can personally review the matter to avoid misuse. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi added another dimension by highlighting the status of in-house counsel, a category often caught in the crosshairs without sufficient protection. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra raised the issue of fees paid for legal opinions and said that lawyers may not be aware whether their fees were paid from the alleged proceeds of the crime. Another senior lawyer, Shoeb Alam, referred to the freezing of accounts of a reputed law firm, saying that fees received for legal services should be presumed bona fide. The counsel appearing for the SCAoRA stressed the principle of 'class privilege' and invoked the legal doctrine of client-lawyer confidentiality . "If we are required to explain our advice, it amounts to self-incrimination," a counsel argued. The solicitor general said a reputed law firm should not be casually named. Referring to a specific case, the solicitor general said, "A fugitive claimed that all his documents were with a particular firm. We were told to go collect them. Lawyers must be protected, but assistance should be governed strictly by well-established legal provisions." The bench directed that written suggestions submitted by SCBA and SCAoRA be forwarded to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General within three days. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on August 12, when the Centre will respond. Earlier, the top court had said that ED was "crossing all limits" and expressed serious concern over the agency summoning advocates for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations. It also called for guidelines on the matter. "The communication between a lawyer and the clients is privileged communication and how can the notices be issued against them... they are crossing all limits," the CJI had said. "Guidelines should be framed," he said while responding to submissions that recent ED notices to legal professionals like senior advocate Datar could have a chilling effect on the practice of law. On June 20, the ED said it had directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in money laundering investigations being carried out against their clients. An exception to this rule can only be made after "approval" by the agency's director, it added. 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. The issuing of summons to these advocates was condemned by the SCBA and the SCAoRA, which called the move a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession. The bar bodies had urged the CJI to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.

"XXX vs Union Of India": Top Court To Hear Justice Varma's Challenge Today
"XXX vs Union Of India": Top Court To Hear Justice Varma's Challenge Today

NDTV

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • NDTV

"XXX vs Union Of India": Top Court To Hear Justice Varma's Challenge Today

New Delhi: Justice Yashwant Varma, who has approached the Supreme Court after its three-member panel recommended his removal, has kept his identity a secret while filing the petition. The Allahabad High Court judge, who made headlines after a massive cash recovery at his Delhi home after a fire, is referred to as "XXX" in the court documents. The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih will today hear Justice Varma's petition, which challenges the findings of the three-member panel. Following the huge cash recovery from his Delhi home, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal. In his challenge to the action against him, the judge has said he was not at his Delhi home when the cash was discovered. He said the top court panel probing the matter did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office". "This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says. Justice Varma has said the top court's in-house procedure to probe the matter was "improper and invalid" because there was no formal complaint against him. The judge has also flagged the top court's "unprecedented public disclosure of these unverified allegations via press release" and said it had subjected him to "media trial, resulting in irreparable damage to his personal reputation and career as a judicial officer". The proceedings, he said, had "violated natural justice, reasonableness and fairness under Article 14". "The Committee failed to notify the Petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only 'incriminating' material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage (despite Petitioner's requests), denied opportunities of personal hearing, did not put any specific/tentative case to the Petitioner, impermissibly reversed the burden of proof without notice to the Petitioner, and effectively hindered any effective defence by the Petitioner," the judge has said in his petition. Justice Varma has said he had been asked to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline", failing which he was informed that action to initiate his "removal" would be initiated. The judge's counsel filed an application seeking permission to file the petition without disclosing his identity, Supreme Court records show.

Ancestral property rights for Adivasi women: Constitution's promise over customary law
Ancestral property rights for Adivasi women: Constitution's promise over customary law

Indian Express

time22-07-2025

  • Politics
  • Indian Express

Ancestral property rights for Adivasi women: Constitution's promise over customary law

On July 17, the Supreme Court affirmed that a woman from a tribal community has an equal right to her family's ancestral property. The Court struck down an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which in 2022, cited the absence of a specific customary law to deny inheritance rights to an appellant. Customary laws are generally unwritten conventions that govern the community affairs of tribal groups. Last week, however, the SC took a more expansive view of the rights of women from these communities and laid down that their exclusion from inheritance rights was discriminatory. Emphasising Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, the SC pointed out that 'Customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time'. They cannot be used to 'deprive others of their right,' the Court ruled. The case dates to 1992, when Dhaiya, a tribal woman in Chhattisgarh, sought the partition of her maternal grandmother's property and was denied multiple times — first by customary laws, and then by trial and appellate courts. The SC's order is a significant intervention in the debate on gender justice in tribal communities. This is not the first time that the apex court has taken a strong stand in favour of inheritance rights of women from tribal groups. In December 2022, while hearing a case of a tribal woman from Odisha who sought a share in the compensation awarded for the acquisition of land belonging to her ancestors, the SC said, 'When the daughter belonging to the non-tribal is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny such right to the daughter of the tribal community. Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession…' The bench had then advised the Centre to 'look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA).' The Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes. The Indian Succession Act, 1925, too, gives states the power to exclude the tribals. Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, allows the woman to inherit her father's property if she marries a man and makes him a ghar-jamai (resident son-in-law). The marriage, however, has to happen during the lifetime of the father. Customary laws are important as a bulwark against forceful assimilation and homogenisation of tribal communities. At the same time, as the SC rightly pointed out in Dhaiya's case, 'collective ethos of the Constitution' ensures 'that there is no discrimination against women'.

Govt officials acting on 'whims and fancies', X tells Karnataka HC
Govt officials acting on 'whims and fancies', X tells Karnataka HC

Business Standard

time08-07-2025

  • Politics
  • Business Standard

Govt officials acting on 'whims and fancies', X tells Karnataka HC

X Corp (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday told the Karnataka High Court that central government officers were directing the platform to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act as per their "whims and fancies." Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, told Justice N. Nagprasanna that thousands of officers appointed by the Union across the country, each with their subjective understanding of online content, were making decisions within their respective jurisdictions under Section 79. This results in arbitrary and inconsistent content regulation, he argued. "Unlike Section 69A, which requires decision-making through a committee process, Section 79 allows a single officer to issue takedown directions without any institutional safeguards. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution... Across the country, thousands of officers, each with their subjective understanding of what is lawful or moral, are making such decisions as per their own whims and fancies. There is no coordination or uniformity among these government officers, and that amounts to arbitrariness," he told the court. Raghavan further argued that Section 79(3)(b) cannot serve as an independent or standalone source of power to block content, especially in the absence of procedural safeguards that are embedded in Section 69A. He further emphasized that Section 79(3)(b) does not, in itself, confer blocking powers on the executive. Referring to Section 69A of the IT Act, Raghavan said it provided a structured regime that requires satisfaction of necessity on limited grounds (such as sovereignty, public order, security of state, etc.), mandates reasons to be recorded in writing, and ensures procedural checks and balances, which is absent in Section 79(3)(b), where an officer or agency takes the decisions. While the platform has "no intention to injure public interest," Section 79(3)(b) could not be read in isolation as a standalone power to bypass these safeguards under Section 69A, Raghavan told the court. "Can a blocking order be passed from the confines of a government officer's room? The answer is no… It becomes a case of 'I say so, therefore it is so.' The officer's decision is treated as final, and if I don't obey, I lose my protection (safe harbour) under Section 79(1) IT Act," he said. Raghavan also told the court that the Union Government consistently argues that Section 79(3)(b) is distinct from Section 69A and not subject to its procedural discipline. This effectively enables the executive to issue content-blocking directions without any statutory or judicial oversight, which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, he said. The benefits of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment for testing the validity of a law and on Sections 69A and 79, and the procedural safeguards must be ensured for X Corp, he said. Opposing X's plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the arguments made by X Corp's counsel have been advanced from "an X-centric perspective." He said that the Union Government must look at the issue from the standpoint of an intermediary. "Suppose a defamatory post is published against me. The government informs the intermediary that the content is defamatory and asks for its removal under Rule 3(1)(d). If the content is not taken down, and I approach the court, Twitter can claim (before the Court) that it is merely a platform and cannot be held liable. But compare this with a press owner, say, the Times of India. I say that Twitter, or any intermediary, enjoys a special exemption under Section 79(1) of the IT Act. The nature of the medium matters," he said. The court then listed the hearing for July 11, with the Union's arguments set to be heard on July 17. The high court is hearing X's plea against the Centre, claiming unlawful content regulation and arbitrary action through the Sahyog Portal. Union's Opposition: The Centre, in its affidavit before the high court, vehemently denied that ministries were issuing notifications at the behest of MeitY. It explained that many government departments/ministries have a National Informatics Centre (NIC) office or officer deputed only for ease of functioning related to IT infrastructure, which is managed by NIC at the national level. This does not mean that NIC is directing the functioning of all ministries, departments, and courts, the Centre said. The lifting of safe harbour could in no way be equated to the blocking of information, the central government added. X's reliance on the Kunal Kamra case was also misplaced because Article 19 pertains to the rights of users of intermediary platforms, not the intermediary itself, the Centre argued.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store