Latest news with #BhartiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam
New Indian Express
20-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC to hear suo motu case on probe agencies summoning advocates for legal advice
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on July 21 a suo motu case over the issue of probe agencies summoning advocates who offer legal opinions or represent parties during the investigation of cases. 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.
Hindustan Times
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear suo motu plea on ED summoning lawyers for legal advice on Monday
New Delhi, 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. 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. The case comes in the wake of the Enforcement Directorate summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. 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 , 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 and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association , 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 of the Constitution, had certain rights and privileges guaranteed as legal professionals and further as a result of statutory provisions. Article 19 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. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Print
13-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
SC to hear suo motu plea on ED summoning lawyers for legal advice on Monday
The case comes in the wake of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. 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.
Time of India
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court to hear suo motu plea on ED summoning lawyers for legal advice on Monday
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. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria will hear the matter. The case comes in the wake of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo 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. Live Events "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.
Hindustan Times
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
MU imposes ₹10L fine on Chembur law college for distributing wrong exam paper
Mumbai: The University of Mumbai's (MU's) Management Council has recently approved the imposition of ₹10 lakh fine on Chembur Karnataka Law college for distributing the wrong question paper to the students during the May 2025 examinations. MU imposes ₹ 10L fine on Chembur law college for distributing wrong exam paper The error occurred during the sixth and tenth semester examination for the three-year and five-year LLB programmes held on Saturday. Students, who had prepared for the exam under the newly introduced Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Indian Evidence Act), were instead given a question paper based on the outdated Law of Evidence. A senior MU official acknowledged the error and confirmed that the college had admitted to the mistake. 'The wrong question paper was distributed to 47 students,' the official said. Following the incident, MU's Examination and Evaluation Board held a meeting in May and recommended a penalty on the college which was ratified by the university's Management Council last week. The college is expected to receive a formal letter soon. According to the resolution passed, 'The college must pay the fine within 30 days. Failure to do so will result in the college being barred from admitting students in the next academic year.' Principal of Chembur Karnataka Law college, Priya Prabhu was unavailable for a comment on the penal action. Welcoming the university's decision, education activist and advocate Sachin Pawar said, 'Strict action like this is necessary. It sends a clear message to colleges that negligence in examination procedures will not be tolerated. Ultimately, such measures protect students' academic interests.'
