The Supreme Court on Monday issued a stern rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate, warning that the agency was "crossing all limits" by summoning lawyers who merely offered legal advice to their clients in money laundering investigations.
Hearing a suo motu matter pertaining to the sanctity of legal advice and the independence of the legal profession, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed alarm over the chilling precedent such actions could set.
“Even if it is wrong, the communication between a lawyer and the clients is privileged communication. How can notices be issued against them? There should be some guidelines,” the Chief Justice observed.
The remarks followed recent summons issued by the agency to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, prompting widespread concern across the legal fraternity.
“They (ED) are crossing all limits,” the CJI said, while strongly backing the need for clear guidelines to prevent misuse of summons powers against lawyers performing their professional duties.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the issue had been raised at the “highest level” and that the ED had been advised against summoning advocates for providing legal opinions.
“Lawyers cannot be summoned for rendering legal opinions,” Mehta submitted, concurring with Venkataramani’s position.
Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh cautioned the bench against India sliding into a pattern of legal intimidation, likening the current trend to curbs seen in countries such as Turkey and China.
“My lords may set it down once and for all, because the European Commission on Human Rights also has something to say. In Turkey, the entire bar association was disbanded. China also has a similar issue,” Singh submitted.
Several advocates argued that the practice of summoning legal representatives undermines the very foundation of the justice system.
“If this continues, it will deter lawyers from offering honest and independent advice,” one lawyer told the court, noting that harassment had extended to lawyers practising in district courts.
The Chief Justice said the court was not basing its concerns on media reports but on actual cases being heard. “We are finding this (overstepping by ED) in many cases, it is not like we are not finding,” he said. “We don’t watch the news, haven’t seen YouTube interviews. Only last week I managed to watch a few movies.”
Also read: ED resummons Meta, Google over betting ad links after no-show
The CJI also referred to matters being heard involving West Bengal Chief Minister, the wife of Karnataka’s Chief Minister, and BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, calling for restraint and urging all parties not to politicise court proceedings.
Mehta, cautioning against generalisations, said, “There is a concerted effort to create a narrative against an institution. My lords may find in a few cases where there is overstepping…”
Justice Chandran responded firmly: “How do you say that these narratives will influence us if we do not see them at all? Narratives will go on all over… but you cannot say that we have been influenced by it."
“The moment I heard about Mr Datar, I immediately brought it to the notice of the highest executive,” Mehta added.
The court directed the SCBA and other stakeholders to submit comprehensive written notes, and granted leave for intervention applications.
The matter will be taken up next on July 29.
The Chief Justice concluded the hearing with a reminder of the shared heritage of the Bench and Bar: “Ultimately, we are all lawyers.”
He emphasised that arguments in court should not be viewed as adversarial, but as part of the shared pursuit of justice.
Notably, the ED had on June 20 issued internal directions stating that no advocate should be summoned in such matters except with prior approval of the agency's Director. The Supreme Court had already flagged the issue on June 25, calling it a "direct threat" to judicial independence.
Follow us
