Latest news with #Datar
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC concerned over ED summoning lawyers for advice, may frame guidelines
The Enforcement Directorate is "crossing all limits", the Supreme Court said on Monday as it 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 remarks from an apex court bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran came during a suo motu hearing initiated by the court to address the implications of such actions on the independence of the legal profession. This comes in the wake of the ED summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. 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 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. Attorney General R Vennkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the issue had been taken up at the highest level and the probe agency asked to not issue notices to the lawyers for rendering legal advice. Lawyers cannot be summoned for rendering legal opinions, the solicitor general said. He, however, said there have been attempts to malign institutions by creating false narratives. Advocates stressed that summoning lawyers, especially for giving legal opinions, was setting a dangerous precedent. If this continues, it will deter lawyers from offering honest and independent advice, a lawyer said, adding that even district court lawyers were facing undue harassment. The attorney general acknowledged the concerns and said, What is happening is certainly wrong. The CJI responded that the court had also been surprised by reports it came across. However, the solicitor general cautioned against forming opinions based on media narratives. There is a concerted effort to target institutions. Please don't go by interviews and news, the law officer said. We don't watch the news, haven't seen YouTube interviews. Only last week I managed to watch a few movies, said the CJI, who was indisposed last week. When the solicitor general referred to politicians, accused in scams, attempting to shape public opinion, the CJI said, We said it don't politicise this. The moment I heard about Mr Datar, I immediately brought it to the notice of the highest executive, Mehta said. The bench directed all parties, including the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA), represented by its president and senior advocate Vikas Singh, to file comprehensive notes on the issue and allowed intervention applications. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 29. Ultimately, we are all lawyers, the CJI remarked, adding that arguments in court should not be viewed adversarially. 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. "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 SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, 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. On June 25, an apex court bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and was a "direct threat" to the independence of justice administration. It observed that the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice. 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. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
News18
21-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
ED crossing all limits: SC on agency summoning lawyers for giving legal advice
New Delhi, Jul 21 (PTI) The Enforcement Directorate is 'crossing all limits", the Supreme Court said on Monday as it 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 remarks from an apex court bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran came during a suo motu hearing initiated by the court to address the implications of such actions on the independence of the legal profession. This comes in the wake of the ED summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. '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 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. Attorney General R Vennkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the issue had been taken up at the highest level and the probe agency asked to not issue notices to the lawyers for rendering legal advice. 'Lawyers cannot be summoned for rendering legal opinions," the solicitor general said. He, however, said there have been attempts to malign institutions by creating false narratives. Advocates stressed that summoning lawyers, especially for giving legal opinions, was setting a dangerous precedent. 'If this continues, it will deter lawyers from offering honest and independent advice," a lawyer said, adding that even district court lawyers were facing undue harassment. The attorney general acknowledged the concerns and said, 'What is happening is certainly wrong." The CJI responded that the court had also been surprised by reports it came across. However, the solicitor general cautioned against forming opinions based on media narratives. 'There is a concerted effort to target institutions. Please don't go by interviews and news," the law officer said. 'We don't watch the news, haven't seen YouTube interviews. Only last week I managed to watch a few movies," said the CJI, who was indisposed last week. When the solicitor general referred to politicians, accused in scams, attempting to shape public opinion, the CJI said, 'We said it… don't politicise this." 'The moment I heard about Mr Datar, I immediately brought it to the notice of the highest executive," Mehta said. The bench directed all parties, including the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA), represented by its president and senior advocate Vikas Singh, to file comprehensive notes on the issue and allowed intervention applications. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 29. 'Ultimately, we are all lawyers," the CJI remarked, adding that arguments in court should not be viewed adversarially. 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. '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 SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, 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. On June 25, an apex court bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and was a 'direct threat" to the independence of justice administration. top videos View all It observed that the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice. 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. PTI SJK SJK MIN MIN (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Wire
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
'Unconstitutional, Illegal': CJAR Asks SC to Seek Explanation From Govt on Stalling Some Judicial Appointments
Government The statement comes after two advocates withdrew consent for appointment as judges after their names were segregated by the government from the list of recommended advocates and kept pending for approval. New Delhi: The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR) on Tuesday (July 8) issued a statement condemning the Union government's decision to withhold the appointment of Swetashree Majumder and Rajesh Datar as high court judges despite recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium. The statement comes after Majumdar and Datar withdrew their consent for appointment as judges as their names were segregated by the government from the list of recommended advocates and kept pending for approval, while those of the others were cleared. 'The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform notes with deep disappointment the recent withdrawal of consent by Ms Swetashree Majumder and Mr Rajesh Datar due to the inexplicable and unconstitutional delays in their appointment as High Court judges,' the organisation stated. Majumder, who was recommended for appointment as a judge of the Delhi high court, withdrew her consent as it was kept pending by the government for over a year. Meanwhile, Datar withdrew his consent for appointment as an additional judge of the Bombay high court, after his name was segregated by the government from the list of four advocates who were recommended for appointment as additional judges. 'The same thing having happened with Senior Advocate Mr Aditya Sondhi in 2022, it is unfortunate that no measures have been taken by the Supreme Court collegium to prevent such a recurrence,' it noted. Calling it 'unconstitutional and illegal', CJAR has called upon the Supreme Court to 'uphold judicial independence' and take immediate steps against the Union government's decision. It reminded the top court that a writ petition is already pending before it since 2018 seeking a mandamus from the government for 'timely judicial appointments in accordance with law and a direction against unilateral segregation of collegiums recommendations, that is leading to the subversion of the judicial appointment process". However, no effective orders have been passed in this case. The CJAR has asked the apex court to take up the issue of judicial appointments once again on the judicial side and 'demand explanations from the Union Government on the circumstances under which Ms Majumder and Mr Datar's appointments were stymied'. 'Nothing less than the future of an independent judiciary depends upon it,' the statement read. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Mint
24-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Mint Explainer: Why ED's summons to top lawyers in stock options case sparked a legal firestorm
The Directorate of Enforcement's recent summons to senior advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Pratap Venugopal in connection with its investigation into stock options granted to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja sparked deep concerns within India's legal community. Though the ED withdrew the notices after mounting criticism and backlash, the episode has reignited the debate on the sanctity of attorney-client privilege, the independence of legal advice, and the limits of investigative overreach. Mint explains the controversy, the key legal flashpoints, and the broader implications for lawyer-client confidentiality in high-stakes corporate investigations. What is the case about? From 2021 to 2023, Care Health Insurance, a subsidiary of Religare Enterprises Ltd, granted 22.71 million stock options valued at over ₹250 crore to Rashmi Saluja, who was the non-executive chairperson of Care and executive chairperson of Religare. This violated the insurance regulator's 2018 circular capping the remuneration of non-executive directors at ₹10 lakh, unless prior approval was secured. Even after specific instructions from the regulator in May 2022 not to proceed without approval, Care went ahead. Also Read | What next for the Burmans now that they have won the battle for Religare In November 2023, the regulator found Care to be in breach of compensation norms, ordered the cancellation of unvested/unexercised stock options, and directed the buyback of 7.57 million shares already allotted to Saluja at ₹45.32 per share. A ₹1 crore penalty followed in July 2024. The Mumbai Police's Economic Offences Wing filed a complaint, prompting the ED to initiate a money laundering probe. In August 2024, the agency conducted search operations and froze the disputed shares, examining whether they were used to facilitate broader financial misconduct. Why were the senior lawyers summoned? As part of the probe, the ED examined how Care Health justified the stock options despite regulatory red flags. The company had relied on legal advice from senior counsel Arvind Datar and former Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India chairperson J. Hari Narayan. Pratap Venugopal, who filed one of the legal opinions, was also summoned. The summons was issued to Datar on 12 June and to Venugopal on 19 June, asking for records of their legal advice, communications, and fee/payment details. Datar is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court known for high-stakes commercial, tax and regulatory litigation, including regular appearances for the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Venugopal has been a designated senior advocate since 31 January 2025 and formerly a founding partner at K.J. John & Co. Why did the ED withdraw the summons? Facing widespread criticism, the ED clarified that the lawyers were not accused and were summoned to assist in understanding the legal rationale behind awarding the stock options. However, Datar refused to appear, citing protections under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which bars compelled disclosure of privileged legal communication. With pressure mounting from top bar associations, the ED withdrew the summons—first to Datar on 14 June and then to Venugopal on 20 June. Later that day, the ED issued a circular clarifying that no such summons can be issued without prior approval. Also Read | Rahul Navin appointed as new director of Enforcement Directorate for two years 'No summons shall be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the BSA, 2023. Further, if any summon needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 132... the same shall be issued with the prior approval of the Director, ED." The circular acknowledged that some field units had summoned advocates during investigations to produce communications and documents—actions that risk infringing upon legal privilege. How did the legal fraternity respond? The ED's summons to senior advocates in the Care Health–Religare case sparked strong condemnation from India's leading bar associations, which viewed it as an attack on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of client-lawyer privilege. 'This action by the ED is not only unwarranted but reflects a disturbing trend of investigative overreach that undermines the very foundation of the rule of law," the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association said in a 16 June statement. It stressed that Datar, a senior member of the bar, had consistently upheld the highest standards of legal ethics. The Bombay Bar Association termed the summons a 'direct attack on the legal community as a whole." It cautioned that such actions—even if withdrawn—could have a chilling effect on advocates engaged in complex corporate cases. The Delhi High Court Bar Association, in its 18 June resolution, called the move a breach of legal sanctity and said, 'If legal opinions are treated as evidence of complicity, no lawyer will ever be able to advise a client without fear." The bar warned that summoning lawyers over opinions rendered in good faith sets a dangerous precedent. Why does this controversy raise deeper concerns? Legal experts said the episode could alter how legal advice is given in sensitive regulatory and corporate matters. 'Encroaching on the confidentiality of legal opinions in high-profile corporate cases could undermine the trust essential for effective legal defence and advice," said Yatharth Rohila, advocate and partner at Aeddhaas Legal. 'This could discourage companies and their legal counsel from seeking or providing candid opinions, fearing exposure or misuse." Also Read | Mint Explainer: Why did Sebi issue notice to Rashmi Saluja, Religare board? 'This development may influence how lawyers approach such matters. While statutes provide protection, the prospect of being summoned could affect the dynamics of legal consultation," noted Himanshu Vidhani, a partner at Chandhiok & Mahajan. Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris, added that even if legal opinions themselves aren't sought, demands for details such as dates, payments or communications can still strike at the heart of legal privilege. The ED has broad powers but using them against legal professionals without clear allegations raises serious concerns, he said. What are the legal protections for lawyer-client privilege in India? Indian law strongly protects lawyer-client confidentiality under Sections 126-129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Advocates cannot disclose client communications, legal advice or confidential documents. This protection extends to legal staff and remains intact even if the client testifies. However, privilege does not apply if the communication furthers a crime or fraud, is shared with third parties, is waived by the client, or relates to disputes between lawyer and client.
Hindustan Times
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
ED withdraws summons to senior advocate amid row
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, hours after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the agency's move, calling it a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance. (HT photo) Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to appear before the ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on Friday afternoon informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar in the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as well, but that notice too was rescinded following backlash from the legal fraternity. In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as 'a deeply disquieting development,' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an 'impermissible transgression' into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated. SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and called for the framing of clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future. This is the second time in recent days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar as 'unwarranted' and a manifestation of growing investigative overreach. Similar concerns have echoed across the legal landscape. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution criticising the ED's actions, warning of a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also convened an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent government action to protect lawyer-client privilege through amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. While ED has not formally disclosed reasons for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the move as an implicit recognition of the serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.
