Supreme Court Pulls Up ED Over Summons to Senior Advocates; Moves to Protect Judicial Independence
New Delhi: Judicial independence is often discussed in theory, but what happens when the very defenders of law – the lawyers – face intimidation? This question dominated the Supreme Court today as it took suo motu cognizance of Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) controversial summons to two senior advocates, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, for allegedly providing legal opinions to their clients.
The Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud (Note: In original context, CJI BR Gavai was mentioned; assuming this is a fictionalized setting as per text) and Justice Vinod Chandran made strong observations, asserting that lawyers cannot be summoned merely for offering legal advice as such interactions are protected by attorney-client privilege.
"If legal advice becomes a crime, what happens to the very foundation of the legal profession?" the Bench remarked.
The Trigger: Summons Over Legal Opinion
The case arose after ED issued summons to Datar and Venugopal in connection with investigations involving MS Care Health Insurance and its ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) linked to Religare Enterprises’ former chairperson Dr. Rashmi Saluja. The two lawyers had reportedly advised the company on ESOP-related issues.
Following an uproar from Bar Associations across India, ED quickly withdrew the summons and issued an internal circular mandating that henceforth, no lawyer will be summoned without the ED Director’s approval under Section 132.
However, the Supreme Court did not let the matter rest there. It initiated suo motu proceedings to examine the larger implications for judicial independence and legal ethics.
Bar Associations Warn Against Intimidation
Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, warned that targeting lawyers amounts to a direct attack on judicial independence.
"If the rights of lawyers are undermined, we are dismantling the very pillars of democracy," he said.
Supporting this, Attorney General R. Venkataramani admitted:
"What ED did was wrong. I personally told them so."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta echoed:
"Lawyers cannot be summoned for giving opinions."
CJI Observations & Future Guidelines
CJI Gavai observed:
"We are noticing similar patterns in several cases. Privileged communication between lawyer and client is sacrosanct."
The Bench hinted that guidelines will soon be laid down to prevent investigative agencies from breaching this confidentiality. The matter will now be heard on July 29, with inputs from Amicus Curiae, AG, SG, and Bar Associations.
ED’s Defense and Narrative Battle
SG Mehta urged the Court not to be influenced by media narratives, stating:
"Even if a politician is accused in a ₹3,000 crore scam, narratives cannot be shaped through interviews and social media trends."
However, Justice Chandran clarified:
"Courts are not swayed by media reports. Our role is to uphold the law."
Why This Matters
The episode underscores increasing judicial scrutiny of ED’s powers, particularly its frequent appeals even after High Court orders. It also raises fundamental questions about the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship. If such privileges are compromised, the credibility of the legal system is at stake.
The Supreme Court’s move to take suo motu cognizance sends a strong message:
"Lawyers cannot be intimidated. Institutions that overreach will be checked."
Key Takeaways
- ED withdrew summons after backlash from the legal fraternity.
- Internal circular issued: No lawyer to be summoned without Director’s nod.
- Supreme Court to draft guidelines safeguarding lawyer-client privilege.
- Next hearing: July 29, 2025.
