Latest news with #SCAORA
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court lawyer body slams ED notice to senior advocate
Representative image (ANI) NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) on Monday condemned ED's notice to senior advocate Arvind Datar for his legal opinion on allotment of employee stock option plan (ESOPs) granted to Rashmi Saluja, ex-chairperson of Religare Enterprises by Care Health Insurance, which is being probed by the agency. Datar had objected to the summons, saying a legal professional's opinion in connection with a case could not be the subject matter of probe. ED subsequently withdrew the summons. Despite its withdrawal, SCAORA, through president Vipin Nair and general secretary Nikhil Jain, issued a statement on ED's unwarranted action. tnn Probing lawyers for legal opinion undermines rule of law: SCAORA Despite withdrawal of summons, SC Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) through chief Vipin Nair and general secretary Nikhil Jain issued a statement on ED's unwarranted action, saying it "reflects a disturbing trend of investigative overreach that threatens the independence of legal profession & undermine the very foundation of the rule of law". "To summon a senior member of the Bar for discharging his professional responsibility is a misuse of authority and an affront to sanctity of role of advocates. When agencies resort to coercive measures against advocates merely for giving legal opinions, they don't just target individuals, they strike at the institutional structure that ensures justice," SCAORA said. "If advocates can be subjected to coercive measures for providing legal advice, it would paralyse the functioning of the legal system and erode public confidence in the justice delivery mechanism," it added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 오스템 임플란트 받아가세요 임플란터 더 알아보기 Undo ED had earlier sent a questionnaire to Arvind Datar and former IRDAI chairman J Hari Narayan, asking them whether they knew before giving legal opinion that IRDAI, the insurance regulator, had already rejected the offer of ESOPs to Saluja, who is under investigation for alleged financial irregularities related to Religare. Sources said Saluja was facing a criminal probe for alleged irregularities in Religare and its subsidiary Care Health Insurance. IRDAI has not only cancelled ESOPs granted to her but imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore for allotment of ESOPs despite IRDAI's disapproval. Saluja has already exercised Rs 40 crore worth of ESOPs before it was cancelled by IRDAI. Datar told ED he could not respond to queries without approval of the client (Religare). However, Religare said it had no objection to ED asking Datar to explain the circumstances.
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court Advocates Association takes issue with ED summons to counsel Arvind Datar over Care Health Insurance advice
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has condemned the Enforcement Directorate 's summons to senior counsel Arvind Datar , who advised Care Health Insurance . In a statement on Monday, the association said: "When investigative agencies resort to coercive measures against advocates merely for giving legal opinions, they do not just target individuals, they strike at the institutional structure that ensures justice." Last week, ET reported that Datar was called by the ED over his legal opinion concerning Esops (employee stock options) allocated to former Care Health Insurance chairperson Rashmi Saluja . Sources told ET that ED has communicated to Datar that his presence was not required as of now in the case and he will communicated later if required. "Section 50 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) empowers the agency to summon a person in a case. It doesn't bar an advocate. While the client-advocate fiduciary relationship is something that probe agencies don't get into but if there is something that they require a clarification on or if the statement could help them understand something, they could be asked to join the probe. The summoning here is in the capacity of a witness," explained a senior advocate. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 경기도 거주자 전용: 무료 영웅 캐릭터를 받으세요! 레이드 섀도우 레전드 Undo Attempts to reach Datar for comment went unanswered by press time. "This action by the ED is not only unwarranted but reflects a disturbing trend of investigative overreach that threatens the independence of the legal profession and undermines the very foundation of the rule of law," the association said. SCAORA emphasised that summoning a senior lawyer for discharging his professional responsibility is a misuse of power and an affront to the sanctity of the advocate's role. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that advocates are not responsible for their clients' actions when they simply give legal advice. Live Events
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Top bar body slams ED's 'chilling message to legal community' to senior advocate
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association on Monday castigated the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior advocate Arvind Datar after he gave legal advice to a firm. The notice, which was subsequently withdrawn by the ED, was issued to Datar after he reportedly gave legal advice to Care Health Insurance on the ESOP (employee stock ownership) issued to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. The SCAORA said such a notice was a "chilling message to the legal community at large and threatens the foundational right of every citizen to receive independent legal counsel without fear or intimidation". Advocate and president SCAORA Vipin Nair said the ED action was not only unwarranted but also reflected a disturbing trend of investigative overreach that threatened the independence of the legal profession and undermined the very foundation of the rule of law. "Datar is a respected Senior Advocate of unimpeachable integrity, who has consistently upheld the highest standards of professional conduct and legal ethics,' said SCAORA secretary Nikhil Jain in the statement. Summoning a senior member of the Bar for discharging his professional responsibility, he said, was a misuse of authority and an affront to the sanctity of the advocate's role. 'The independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Bar are twin pillars of our constitutional democracy. The effective functioning of courts is impossible without fearless and independent advocates. When investigative agencies resort to coercive measures against advocates merely for giving legal opinions, they do not just target individuals, they strike at the institutional structure that ensures justice," the statement added. The SCAORA further said undermining the professional independence of advocates ultimately threatened judiciary's independence. It also pointed to several judgments shielding advocates from the purported actions of their clients for merely giving legal opinions. 'The ED's action conflates legal advice with criminal complicity, a proposition that is constitutionally untenable and legally unjustifiable,' it said. If advocates can be subjected to coercive measures for providing legal advice, it would paralyse the functioning of the legal system and erode public confidence in the justice delivery mechanism, it added. Though the summon was withdrawn by the ED, the SCAORA lodged its "strong protest" against the "arbitrary exercise of executive power".
Hindustan Times
04-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
SCAORA acting beyond its mandate: SCBA president to CJI
New Delhi, The Supreme Court Bar Association president on Wednesday wrote to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai accusing the top court's advocates on record association of "overstepping" its mandate. The SCBA claimed that the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association had issued communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure and bar members of the top court. In his letter to the CJI, Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh said he wanted to ensure that the functioning of this institution remained "cohesive, disciplined, and free from unnecessary overlaps" or conflicts-particularly in matters concerning the general interests of the bar or Supreme Court infrastructure. He underlined the need to promote a unified voice within the bar while ensuring "seamless collaboration" and respect for institutional integrity and maintaining harmony between the bar and the bench. "Surprisingly, in the recent times, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association , while acting beyond its mandate, has been issuing communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure, facilities and issues concerning general Bar members of the Supreme Court. These subjects strictly fall within the exclusive domain of SCBA, which represents the collective interests of all categories of lawyers practising in the Supreme Court," Singh's letter said. He continued, "SCBA today comprises 22,734 members, which include 10,013 permanent members and 12,309 temporary members. There are 401 pending membership requests at present. These 22,734 members include 906 senior advocates, AoRs, and about 19,000 non-AoR practitioners." Notably, Singh said, there were 3,786 AoRs registered with the Supreme Court as of now and 3,000 of them were members of the SCAORA. "In that view of the matter, SCAORA does not even represent all AoRs registered in Supreme Court." Referring to a recent issue raised by the SCAORA to the secretary general, Supreme Court on biometric entry for lawyers, Singh said there was absolutely no question of members of the bar voluntarily offering such extensive personal information to the registry of the Supreme Court. "If on the other hand, there is any mandate from the Supreme Court, for security reasons, upon discussion with the SCBA, the Bar would, of course, fully cooperate," the letter said. Singh said sharing such biometric data by lawyers could be counter effective, considering the increased instances of breach of data privacy. He said SCAORA's scope should be limited to issues "concerning AoR practice" such as matters related to filing procedures, registry protocols, and AoR- specific concerns. The letter claimed that the SCBA, and not the SCAORA, was the only recognised court-annexed bar association that represented the members regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
