Probe agencies can't summon lawyers: AG; CJI says 'ED officers crossing all limits'
NEW DELHI: Admitting that ED erred in summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for rendering legal opinions to clients in a laundering case, attorney general R Venkataramani Monday told Supreme Court that all probe agencies have been asked not to commit this mistake in future.
'We'll frame guidelines in this regard,' AG told a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while it was hearing a suo motu case regarding the summons, which were later withdrawn.
'ED officers are crossing all limits. They must know that under law, communication between a lawyer and his client is a privileged communication,' Gavai said.
If a lawyer is involved in crime, law will take its own course: CJI
However, if a lawyer is involved in a crime, law will take its own course,' CJI Gavai said.
SC would take up petitions filed by various bar associations on July 29 to attempt to lay down comprehensive guidelines in this regard, he added.
On the joint pleas of SCBA president Vikas Singh, SC Advocates-on-Record president Vipin Nair, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Vijay Hansaria, the CJI-led bench said it would frame guidelines for agencies and bar them from summoning advocates for legal opinion or advice rendered to clients facing prosecution.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
While agreeing with AG, solicitor general Tushar Mehta pointed out another malady afflicting some in the legal professions. "It is equally wrong on the part of advocates, who appear for or advise a client, to create a planned narrative in favour of their client and against the probe agency through social media before and after filing of a petition in a court. Lawyers must stick to their duty of presenting the case before the court,' he said.
Mehta said, "The communication between a lawyer and his client is no doubt privileged and which must be immune from investigation, But would a lawyer's action in creating a narrative for his client outside the court also enjoy the status of a privileged communication? Would it not amount to an attempt to influence the public and judiciary about a case?'
CJI Gavai asked, 'Have you ever found a judgment or order of a court getting swayed or influenced by such narratives spun by lawyers outside the court? We go by facts and submissions in the courtroom and do not even watch or read what the lawyers speak outside the courtroom about the case.'
Mehta said the issuance of summons to Datar was brought to the notice of the 'highest executive' and within six hours a circular was issued by the ED barring its officers from issuing summons to any advocate. Singh, Nair and Hansaria said issuance of summons to advocates by probe agencies would have a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Life term or 7-yr jail: SC gives man, 67, choice in 1979 college clash verdict
NEW DELHI: Some may call it a burning example of a snail-paced justice delivery system while others may term it as "law catching up with the culprit when he is at his weakest". However one may describe it, a person who committed the crime as a hot-headed college student, now dreads spending the rest of his life as an ailing senior citizen behind bars. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The SC has now given him the option between life term or seven years in jail. A union election-related fight between two students of LokManya Inter College in Deoria district of in 1979 led to 21-year-old Hari Shankar Rai stabbing a 19-year-old Krishna Kumar, who died of injuries on Dec 14, 1979. The trial court in 1983 found Rai guilty under Section 304-I of IPC and sentenced him to four-year imprisonment. A person lost his life, there should be adequate punishment for the crime: SC The Allahabad HC took 41 years to decide the appeal filed by the state challenging the trial court decision and seeking his conviction for murder. Rai had appealed against his conviction. In May last year, the HC found the evidence strong enough to convict Rai under Section 302 and awarded life imprisonment. Rai appealed against the HC judgment before the SC. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran told the 67-year-old Rai that even if his conviction for murder is altered to that under Section 304-I, he cannot escape with a punishment of mere four years imprisonment. "A person lost his life and whatever may be, there should be adequate punishment for the crime," the CJI said. His counsel said the man is now 67-year-old suffering from ailments and pleaded for mercy on the ground that his wife is suffering from cancer, needing constant care. But the bench remained firm and refused to grant him bail during the pendency of his appeal in the SC. Refusing to show mercy and warning the convict's counsel that arguing for acquittal, in the face of a well-reasoned HC judgment, would result in dismissal of the appeal, CJI Gavai said, "If you are agreeable, we will convert the conviction under Sec 302 to that under Sec 304-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) with seven year imprisonment." SC also asked the state counsel Tulika Mukherjee to take instructions regarding the present relationship between the families of the victim and the accused.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Rajnath Singh to initiate debate on Operation Sindoor in Lok Sabha on Monday
NEW DELHI: Defence minister Rajnath Singh is set to initiate a discussion on Operation Sindoor in Lok Sabha on Monday while PM Narendra Modi is likely to intervene amid indications that he may use the much-anticipated debate to turn the heat on opposition, which wants to corner the government over alleged intelligence failures and US President Donald Trump's ceasefire claims. The first week of monsoon session of Parliament ended without much business with just one bill passed, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju on Friday reiterated that govt was ready to discuss all issues including the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor. The day also witnessed a floor leaders' meeting with Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after which his secretariat claimed that all parties agreed to ensure smooth functioning of Parliament next week when discussion on Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor will take place in both Houses for 16 hours each. However, a few opposition parties are still firm to continue with protests over SIR exercise, which Election Commission has now announced to carry out nationwide. Sources said Union home minister Amit Shah, external affairs minister S Jaishankar and BJP MPs Anurag Thakur and Nishikant Dubey are expected to take part in the discussion in Lok Sabha. PM Modi is expected to speak in both the Houses. Besides, Rajnath and Jaishankar will be among ministers who will also take part in the discussion in Rajya Sabha. TDP's Lavu Sri Krishnadevaraya and GM Harish Balayogi are expected to take part in discussion on Operation Sindoor in Lok Sabha. Sources said the party has been allotted 30 minutes. Samajwadi Party, its chief Akhilesh Yadav and MP Rajiv Rai will take part in the debate. Opposition parties have agreed to the agenda of taking up a special discussion on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor on Monday in Lok Sabha and the next day in Rajya Sabha, brightening the prospect of normalcy returning to Parliament after the virtual washout of first-week proceedings. Rijiju blamed opposition for washout of the first week of monsoon session, accusing it of not allowing Parliament to function despite govt agreeing to its demand for a discussion on these issues right from the session's start. Asked about opposition's demand that Parliament discuss the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, he said all issues cannot be taken up at once and govt will take a call on other matters gradually. With the electoral rolls revision exercise being seen in govt circles as Election Commission carrying out its mandate, the possibility of a discussion on the contentious issue is slim, sources said. Opposition has alleged that the drive is aimed at helping BJP-led alliance, which is in power in poll-bound Bihar as well. From the treasury benches, Speakers are likely to include its members who were part of the seven all-party delegations which had travelled to over 30 world capitals to convey India's robust stand against terrorism and Pakistan's role in abetting it.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
