Latest news with #DelhiSpecialPoliceEstablishmentAct
News18
6 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
Lawyer-Client Privilege Can't Shield Crime—No One Is Above Law: Solicitor General To SC
Tushar Mehta argued that creating an unaccountable zone for lawyers risks turning privilege into a tool for obstructing justice The Supreme Court's suo moto proceedings on whether advocates can be summoned by investigating agencies, including the Enforcement Directorate, took a decisive turn on Tuesday with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presenting a detailed argument. He stated that lawyer-client privilege is among the law's most sacred protections, but it ends when it is used to abet illegality. The suo moto case came in the wake of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The move was condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which called it 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. Appearing in 'Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation", Mehta began by reaffirming the sanctity of legal professional privilege. Rooted in common law and Sections 132-134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), this privilege enables clients to speak frankly, ensuring effective legal advice and a robust defence. 'It is one of the most sacrosanct principles of law and must remain so," he said, explaining its role in fostering respect for the rule of law. Mehta dismissed any notion of a special shield for the profession, stating that granting blanket immunity would create an unconstitutional 'separate class" in violation of Article 14. He likened it to the now-struck-down Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which insulated senior bureaucrats from corruption probes until the court ruled in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy that 'however high you may be, the law is above you". The SG's formulation was clear: Lawyers are citizens first. 'Lawyers cannot claim absolute immunity from being summoned for investigation in cases where there is reasonable suspicion of their involvement in an offence. There is no statutory or constitutional provision that provides blanket immunity to advocates from being summoned or investigated when there is prima facie material suggesting their involvement in an offence. Any claim of blanket immunity for lawyers from being investigated under the guise of lawyer-client privilege would amount to creating a separate class, violating the constitutional guarantee," he stated. It would create an artificial and unjustifiable classification, thereby violating Article 14, said the Solicitor General. 'Granting blanket immunity to lawyers from criminal investigation or summons would result in the creation of a separate class, insulated from ordinary legal processes applicable to all other citizens. Such a classification would lack any intelligible differentia and would not serve any legitimate state interest, thus failing the twin test under Article 14," Mehta argued. The privilege exists to protect legitimate professional engagement, not personal complicity in criminal conduct. 'Simply because a lawyer represents a client in fiduciary capacity, this cannot preclude an investigating agency from summoning him if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lawyer has committed, abetted, or facilitated a criminal act," he said. On the powers of investigation, Mehta was categorical. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, police have both a statutory right and a duty to investigate cognisable offences without prior judicial approval. This separation of functions, which includes investigation by police and adjudication by courts, has been a settled principle since Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (1944) and was reaffirmed in JAC Saldanha (1980). Courts, he said, should not interfere in the investigative domain unless fundamental rights are directly at stake. Mehta also challenged the argument that the case required new judicial guidelines. There is no legislative vacuum, he said, that warrants judicial lawmaking under Article 142. The BSA, Companies Act, and Civil Procedure Code already provide a clear statutory scheme balancing privilege and accountability. Past Constitution Benches, starting from Prem Chand Garg to Union Carbide, have cautioned that Article 142 cannot be used to contravene express legislative provisions. Mehta argued that creating an unaccountable zone for lawyers risks turning privilege into a tool for obstructing justice. He emphasised that professional secrecy cannot be abused to shield criminality. The constitutional promise of equality before the law demands that every citizen, whether advocate, bureaucrat, or private individual, answer for offences committed. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 12, 2025, 19:28 IST News india Lawyer-Client Privilege Can't Shield Crime—No One Is Above Law: Solicitor General To SC 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.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Corruption law provision shields honest officers, punishes dishonest ones: Centre to SC
New Delhi, The Centre on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that a provision of the anti-graft law, which mandates prior approval for starting probe against government officials in corruption cases, was an attempt of legislature to have "fearless governance". Corruption law provision shields honest officers, punishes dishonest ones: Centre to SC The government informed a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan that "fearless good governance" was also a "very fundamental part of any constitutional governance". The bench then reserved its verdict on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which mandates prior approval to start investigation against government officials in corruption cases. " 17A, the way it is couched, in the most restrictive manner is one more attempt of the legislature to have fearless governance ensuring honest officers are not punished and dishonest officers do not go scot-free," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said. The bench enquired about the number of corruption complaints received since the amended Section 17A of the Act came into force in 2018. Mehta said he could give figures of complaints that were received by the CBI. He said approval was granted in 60 per cent of the complaints. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, said, "So in last six years, they say that 2,395 complaints came for either preliminary inquiry or investigation." "They say out of these, they declined 989 references, roughly 41 per cent, and approved 1,406 references," added Bhushan. Mehta said reasoned orders were passed while either granting or refusing approval. He said ultimately, these orders could be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny and the aggrieved party could always challenge it. "Now, in the present day of this aggressive activism, if I may use that expression, the moment it is refused, the complainant comes with RTI. He comes with documents and he immediately rushes to the court challenging non-grant of approval," Mehta said. He said the officers were very careful in either granting or refusing approval. The bench also heard Bhushan's rejoinder. "Possibly, he would now take your lordships to laying down some guidelines, etc. Please avoid doing that. There is no vacuum. There are judicial pronouncements on the subject and the statutory regime in place," Mehta said. Bhushan said preliminary enquiry on a complaint would reveal whether there was any substance in it or not. "Why should they be exposed to such harassment?" the bench asked. It also pointed out a situation in which honest bona fide decisions taken by officers were met with frivolous allegations. Bhushan said there was no harassment, no coercive action, no arrest, no search or seizure at the stage of preliminary enquiry. He referred to an apex court judgement which struck down a provision of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. He said then the issue was examined threadbare by a five-judge bench. "It would be totally improper and a violation of judicial discipline if this court were to say that we feel that this protection needs to be given to honest officers," Bhushan said. Justice Viswanathan then said, "Unless we agree with you, we violate judicial discipline?" Bhushan submitted he was not saying that. "To say that unless you go my way or the highway, you are committing impropriety, is completely unjustified," Justice Viswanathan said. Mehta in the beginning of the hearing said he had a detailed discussion with the director and joint director of CBI and prepared a short note relating to the probe agency selecting human resources. He said experts from different fields, including bank, finance and other department were taken to provide their expertise on deputation basis. While hearing the arguments on August 5, the bench stressed on striking a balance to protect honest government servants discharging their official functions from frivolous complaints while ensuring corrupt officers were not shielded. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
20-06-2025
- The Hindu
CBI takes over probe into Wayanad tribal youth's death in police custody
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has taken over the probe into the alleged custodial death of Gokul, an 18-year-old tribal youth, at Kalpetta police station in Wayanad district, which had earlier been investigated by the Crime Branch. A special team from the CBI's Thiruvananthapuram unit will investigate the case based on a notification published by the State government in the Kerala Gazette on June 6 that gave consent to transfer the case under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Expressing disappointment over the local police investigation, Omana, Gokul's mother, had moved the Kerala High Court with a request to hand over the case to the CBI as the suspects were all police officers. She had accused the police of grave human rights violations while keeping him in custody without any evidence of his involvement in any cognizable offence. It was on April 1 that Gokul was found dead in the washroom of the Kalpetta police station, a day after he was taken into custody in connection with the missing of a minor tribal girl. Two police officers, including an Assistant Sub-inspector, were placed under suspension following an internal investigation. There were also a series of protests on the part of tribal families and human rights organisations for considering the incident just as a case of unnatural death under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Seeking a CBI probe, they had appealed to the State government to have a serious look at the investigation report submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (North Zone) that had found several grave lapses on the part of police officers in ensuring Gokul's safe custody. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission had also registered a case and sought a separate report from the District Police Chief (Wayanad). It was on March 31 that the 18-year-old from Nellarachal near Wayanad district's Ambalavayal was taken into custody from Kozhikode along with the missing tribal girl. The two were reportedly fleeing their village in Wayanad following some inter-tribe issues over their relationship and the decision to get married. Though the police sent the girl to a government shelter home, the youth was kept in police custody. He was found dead the following day. However, the police officers at the Kalpetta station had denied allegations of custodial torture and claimed that the post-mortem examination had found no trace of injuries on his body to prove the same. Citing the case as a suicide, they had also tried to uncover some of the previous 'self-killing attempts' by the youth on various issues.
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
CBI books ex-Ordnance Factory Medak officer, wife in DA case
1 2 Hyderabad: The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against Gopal Mashetty, former store in-charge at the Ordnance Factory Medak (OFMK), and his wife, Aruna Mashetty, for allegedly accumulating assets worth several crores—grossly disproportionate to their known sources of income. The case was initiated following a complaint filed on April 27, 2024, by Amit Sharma, who alleged that Gopal had acquired a number of immovable properties—both in his and his wife's names—that far exceeded his lawful earnings during his service at OFMK. Mashetty retired in June 2024 as a scale-4 officer. Wealth discrepancy A vigilance officer conducted a preliminary verification and submitted a report on May 3, 2025, covering the period from Jan 2010 to June 2018. The findings revealed that the assets amassed by Gopal were approximately 773% higher than his known sources of income during his tenure in govt service. Based on this, the CBI established a prima facie case under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aruna was charged under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in conjunction with the same sections of the PC Act for abetment. CBI gets consent The Telangana govt granted consent for the CBI to proceed under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act on March 3 this year. Subsequently, the department of personnel and training, govt of India, issued a notification on June 2, authorising the investigation. Gopal and Aruna are residents of Yeddumailaram in Kandi mandal of Sangareddy district. With the case now formally registered, the CBI has launched a full-fledged investigation to ascertain the complete extent of assets acquired and to uncover any further offences that may surface.
Indian Express
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Modi, CJI, Rahul Gandhi meet to decide next CBI chief as Praveen Sood nears end of term
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday evening chaired a high-level meeting to select the next Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi also in attendance. The three-member selection panel, which met at the Prime Minister's official residence, deliberated on the names of three senior IPS officers, a senior government official told The Indian Express. The meeting began around 6.45 pm and concluded by 7.30 pm. The deliberations come ahead of the scheduled end of the two-year fixed tenure of incumbent CBI Director Praveen Sood on May 25. Sources indicated that Sood is unlikely to be granted an extension, although no official decision has been announced yet. A 1986-batch IPS officer of the Karnataka cadre, Sood served as the state's Director General of Police before being appointed as the head of the CBI on May 25, 2023. His appointment last year came at a time when the agency was probing several high-profile corruption and criminal cases across states. Under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the CBI Director is appointed for a minimum term of two years by the central government on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. This process was introduced to ensure transparency and insulation of the investigative agency from political influence. The CBI, which functions as the premier investigating agency in the country, plays a critical role in cases referred by the central government, state governments, or the courts.
