Latest news with #SCAORA
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
"Will Vacate Official Residence On Time Post Retirement": Chief Justice BR Gavai
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Thursday said due to time constraints he would not be able to find a suitable house by the time he retires in November and "for sure vacate" his official residence within the time period allowed under the rules. Bidding farewell to outgoing Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who is set to superannuate on August 9, the CJI at an event organised by Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) called him a "warm person" who dedicated his career to the judiciary. Speaking to an audience comprising judges of the top court and high court aside from senior lawyers and their family members the CJI said Justice Dhulia would vacate his official residence, a day after his retirement. "We will always remember his contribution to the judiciary. After retirement, he is going to be in Delhi, and he'll be one of the judges who will be vacating the house immediately. On the next day of his retirement," the CJI said. Interestingly, a month ago in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Centre to vacate the official residence of the Chief Justice of India at Krishna Menon Marg in Delhi, noting former CJI DY Chandrachud had stayed beyond the permissible period. Earlier in August, however, Justice Chandrachud vacated the official residence of the head of the judiciary. Referring to his and Justice Dhulia's situation, the CJI said, "As a matter of fact, that's a rarity. I wish I would also be in a position to do it till November 24. I won't find time to find a suitable house, but I can assure you that whatever time is permissible as per the rules, I'll be shifting before that. But Justice Dhulia has set a very good example. I am sure that many of us can emulate him." Justice Dhulia was a part of numerous judgements in the apex court, including the hijab ban case from Karnataka in which he dissented with the majority view and held there should be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. When speakers lauded the verdict, Justice Dhulia said, "Let me tell you I was not defending the Hijab. What I was defending was the choice of women to wear Hijab. If I have a judicial philosophy, then I can only say that my judicial philosophy is everything is around the human being. Everything which is for the benefit of a human being is my judicial philosophy." The outgoing judge lauded the contributions of advocates-on-record and asked them to gear up for "their importance rises with the rise in litigation" and indicated that he would speak more on Friday, his last working day. In April, a bench headed by Justice Dhulia ruled Urdu language was born in this land and described it as the finest specimen of "Ganga Jamuni tahzeeb". The bench said considering it a language of Muslims was a "pitiable digression" from reality and unity in diversity. Justice Dhulia was born on August 10, 1960 and completed schooling in Dehradun, Allahabad and Lucknow. He was elevated as a permanent Judge of Uttarakhand High Court on November 1, 2008 and took oath as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court on January 10, 2021 before being elevated to the top court on May 9, 2022. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK
New Indian Express
29-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Lawyers 'merely' providing legal opinion to clients under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC
Echoing similar voices with Singh, Nair expressed deep concern over the issuance of summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, highlighting that such actions constitute an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct principle of lawyer-client privilege. "This pose a serious threat to the autonomy, independence, and fearless functioning of the Bar," Nair stated. SCAORA urged the top court to examine the legality and propriety of such actions, safeguard the constitutional and professional protections afforded to advocates, and lay down appropriate guidelines to prevent any further erosion of the independence of the Bar and misuse of executive power. On the other hand, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, agreed with the court's saying that lawyers should not be summoned merely for offering legal advice. "The privilege of communication between a lawyer and a client must be respected. The profession itself is protected under the proviso,' Mehta pointed out. After being apprised about the laws on summoning of lawyers, the top court directed that written suggestions submitted by SCBA and SCAoRA be forwarded to the SG and the Attorney General within three days, and fixed the matter for further hearing to August 12, when the Centre will respond.
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.
New Indian Express
21-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
ED withdraws summons to senior lawyer
NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons issued against a senior advocate for reportedly giving legal advice in a case, after the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) wrote to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for taking note of the coercive action. The agency wrote to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, intimating him that the summons have been withdrawn with 'immediate effect'. SCAORA president Vipin Nair had written to CJI B R Gavai on the 'deeply disquieting development' having 'serious ramifications for the independence of the legal profession and the foundational principle of lawyer-client confidentiality'. 'It has come to our notice that senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, has received on June 19, a summons dated June 18, by ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in its investigation into the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) granted by M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd for a purported legal opinion rendered by senior advocate Arvind Datar, wherein Pratap Venugopal, was the advocate-on-record, supporting the grant of stock options to former Religare enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja,' the letter said. Venugopal told TNIE the probe agency's action was completely illegal, unconstitutional, unwarranted. 'It is sad and unfortunate. The action of issuing summons to advocates is an alarming practice besides being wholly contrary to the provisions of Sec 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023,' he said.
Time of India
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC lawyers' body asks ED to respect independence of Bar, exercise restraint
Representative Image Sections 132 and 134 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, protect lawyer-client communications from disclosure. The Enforcement Directorate message to Venugopal read, "Please refer to the trail mail in this regard. The summons for June 24 issued to you hereby stands withdrawn with immediate effect." By afternoon, the SC Bar Association's executive body, led by senior advocate Vikas Singh, condemned the ED summons to Datar and Venugopal. "Issuance of such illegal notices and summons to senior advocates and to the advocate-on-record reflect a disturbing trend, striking at the very foundations of the legal profession and undermining the independence of the bar, which is a core pillar of Indian democracy," it said, calling upon ED to respect independence of bar and exercise restraint. SCAORA requested the CJI to "examine the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions rendered in good faith; safeguard the constitutional and professional protections accorded to advocates; and lay down guidelines to prevent further erosion of professional protection to lawyer-client communications and uphold independence of bar". SCAORA said the unwarranted steps taken by ED against senior advocates for discharge of their professional duty set a "dangerous precedent" that could have a chilling effect on the entire legal fraternity and dissuade them from giving honest and independent legal opinions to clients. Bar Association of India, too, criticised ED and said, "Issuance of summons is also an egregious example of overreach by the agency and is an attempt to undermine attorney-client privilege protected under the provisions of BSA."
