Lawyers merely giving legal opinion to clients who are under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC
If any lawyer "is assisting the client in the crime", then he can be summoned, it said.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while hearing a suo motu case about summoning of advocates by probe agencies for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations.
'We have said in the beginning itself that if somebody is assisting the client in the crime, then he can be summoned… but not merely for giving legal advice,' the bench said.
The bench heard submissions on the issue from bar bodies the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association , represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh and lawyer Vipin Nair.
At the outset, Singh, also the SCBA President, voiced concern over the "chilling effect" that "arbitrary summoning" could have on the legal profession.
'If lawyers can be routinely summoned for advising clients, no one will dare provide counsel in sensitive criminal cases,' he said, adding that safeguards similar to those followed by the CBI should be implemented.
He proposed that permission for summoning a lawyer should come from the Superintendent of Police of a district and then be scrutinised by a judicial magistrate before issuance.
The bench indicated that judicial oversight could serve as a crucial check on investigative overreach.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, agreed with the core premise that lawyers should not be summoned merely for offering legal advice.
He emphasised that the privilege of communication between a lawyer and a client must be respected.
'The profession itself is protected under the proviso,' he said, but cautioned against introducing measures that could result in inequality.
'A magistrate's permission only for summoning lawyers, not non-lawyers, may violate Article 14,' the law officer said.
Referring to earlier incidents when senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned, the law officer said that any misuse of authority was promptly addressed.
'Within six hours of the complaint, the action was withdrawn,' he said.
The law officer said that before any summons is issued, the ED Director can personally review the matter to avoid misuse.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi added another dimension by highlighting the status of in-house counsel, a category often caught in the crosshairs without sufficient protection.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra raised the issue of fees paid for legal opinions and said that lawyers may not be aware whether their fees were paid from the alleged proceeds of the crime.
Another senior lawyer, Shoeb Alam, referred to the freezing of accounts of a reputed law firm, saying that fees received for legal services should be presumed bona fide.
The counsel appearing for the SCAoRA stressed the principle of 'class privilege' and invoked the legal doctrine of client-lawyer confidentiality.
'If we are required to explain our advice, it amounts to self-incrimination,' a counsel argued.
The solicitor general said a reputed law firm should not be casually named.
Referring to a specific case, the solicitor general said, 'A fugitive claimed that all his documents were with a particular firm. We were told to go collect them. Lawyers must be protected, but assistance should be governed strictly by well-established legal provisions.'
The bench directed that written suggestions submitted by SCBA and SCAoRA be forwarded to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General within three days.
The matter has now been posted for further hearing on August 12, when the Centre will respond.
Earlier, the top court had said that ED was "crossing all limits" and expressed serious concern over the agency summoning advocates for offering legal advice or representing clients during investigations. It also called for guidelines on the matter.
'The communication between a lawyer and the clients is privileged communication and how can the notices be issued against them… they are crossing all limits,' the CJI had said.
'Guidelines should be framed,' he said while responding to submissions that recent ED notices to legal professionals like senior advocate Datar could have a chilling effect on the practice of law.
On June 20, the ED said it had directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in money laundering investigations being carried out against their clients. An exception to this rule can only be made after "approval" by the agency's director, it added.
The ED, tasked with combating money laundering crimes, issued a circular for guidance of its field formations, stating that "no summons" should be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023.
The issuing of summons to these advocates was condemned by the SCBA and the SCAoRA, which called the move a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession.
The bar bodies had urged the CJI to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
40 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt, Governor set to begin talks for consensus on VC appointments
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: With the Supreme Court directing both the state government and the chancellor (Governor) to kick-start the process to appoint permanent vice-chancellors (VCs) in universities at the earliest, both sides are set to begin discussions to arrive at a consensus on the matter. Higher Education Minister R Bindu and Law Minister P Rajeeve are scheduled to meet Governor Rajendra Arlekar on Sunday at the directions of CM Pinarayi Vijayan. 'The government will try its best to resolve the deadlock,' Bindu told TNIE. As per highly placed sources, the constitution of search committees for selection of permanent VCs in a few universities will be taken up as a preliminary step. Of the 14 state universities, the Acts of seven varsities lay down that the chancellor shall constitute the search committee. However, the Acts of seven other universities are silent on who is the authority to constitute the panel. 'The second category mostly includes varsities that are newly established or under departments such as agriculture, fisheries, veterinary and health,' said a top source. 'The chancellor will allow the government to form search panel in such varsities to start the process. However, the Raj Bhavan will insist that the search committee be constituted as per UGC regulations,' the source added. As per the UGC regulations, the three-member panel will have nominees of the UGC chairman, the chancellor and the university syndicate. 'If the government agrees to this proposal, it would be an admission that the University Amendment Bill, that aims to alter the composition of search committees in its favour, is now a closed chapter. But there is no other choice as the President has withheld assent to the Bill,' said a government source. The preliminary steps by both parties will serve as a chance for either sides to demonstrate their intent in appointing permanent VCs through consensus. Universities where chancellor is authority to constitute search panel Kerala University MG University Calicut University Kannur University CUSAT Sanskrit University Digital University Universities where Act is silent on who should constitute search panel Kerala Agricultural University Malayalam University APJ Abdul Kalam Tech University Kerala University of Health Sciences Kerala Veterinary & Animal Sciences University Fisheries University Sreenarayana Guru Open University
Hans India
40 minutes ago
- Hans India
Constitutional contours: The power and purpose of Article 143(1)
The Indian Constitution, a living document, often presents complex questions that require nuanced interpretations to ensure its provisions align with the evolving needs of governance. One such issue has arisen with the President of India invoking Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on a constitutional question stemming from a recent judgment. This judgment mandated that a Governor must act on a Bill passed by a State Legislature within a stipulated period, failing which the Bill would be deemed to have received assent. The President's reference seeks clarity on this interpretation, prompting the Supreme Court to constitute a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, to hear the matter on August 19. However, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have raised preliminary objections, questioning the maintainability of this reference. They argue that the issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court, and under Article 141, the law declared by it is binding on all courts and constitutional authorities. They contend that seeking an advisory opinion on a decided matter is unnecessary and potentially undermines the binding precedent established under Article 141. This debate brings to the fore a critical tension between the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) and the binding nature of its judgments under Article 141, raising questions about the scope and purpose of presidential references. To evaluate the objections, it is essential to delineate the roles of Articles 141 and 143(1). Article 141 establishes that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India, ensuring uniformity in judicial interpretation. The term 'courts' has been expansively interpreted to include statutory tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, reinforcing the judiciary's role in maintaining legal consistency. In contrast, Article 143(1) empowers the President to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion, irrespective of whether the issue has been previously adjudicated. The provision's language is broad, allowing references on questions that 'have arisen or are likely to arise,' thereby encompassing both settled and prospective issues. The discretionary nature of Article 143(1) is evident in its wording, which states that the Supreme Court 'may' provide an opinion. This discretion was affirmed in the Kerala Education Bill case (1959), where the court held that it could decline to answer a reference if the question is hypothetical, politically charged, or otherwise unsuitable for advisory adjudication. However, the existence of a prior judgment does not inherently bar a reference, as the advisory jurisdiction operates independently of the binding precedent framework under Article 141. Historical instances of presidential references under Article 143(1) underscore the provision's flexibility. In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (Third Judges Case), the President sought the Supreme Court's opinion on judicial appointments, despite prior rulings in the Second Judges Case. The apex court entertained the reference and provided clarity without questioning its maintainability. Similarly, following the 2G Spectrum judgment, the President referred questions related to issues already addressed by the Court, which again responded without objection. These cases demonstrate that Article 143(1) allows the President to seek guidance on matters of constitutional significance, even when they involve existing precedents, particularly when broader governance implications persist. The objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which hinge on the binding nature of Article 141, overlook the distinct constitutional role of Article 143(1). The President, when invoking this provision, does not act in a judicial capacity but as a constitutional functionary seeking to clarify legal or governance issues. The advisory opinion, as clarified in Keshav Singh's Case (1965), is not a binding judgment but carries significant persuasive authority, guiding constitutional functionaries and shaping future judicial and administrative actions. The present reference centers on the Governor's role in the legislative process, a recurring point of contention in India's federal structure. Governors, as constitutional heads of states, are expected to act as neutral facilitators of the legislative process, not as obstructions. The Supreme Court's earlier ruling, which mandated timely action on Bills, sought to prevent executive inaction from derailing legislative intent. However, the ambiguity surrounding the 'stipulated period' and the concept of 'deemed assent' has sparked debate, particularly in states where Governors have delayed or withheld assent, leading to tensions with elected legislatures. The President's reference is timely, as it addresses a question with far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations. Governors' discretionary powers, though limited, have often been a flashpoint, as seen in recent controversies in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab, where delays in assenting to Bills have led to accusations of partisan overreach. By seeking the Supreme Court's opinion, the President aims to ensure that constitutional processes remain robust and that the Governor's role aligns with democratic principles. The Supreme Court's advisory opinion, while not legally binding, will carry significant weight. Conversely, if the court revisits its interpretation, it could provide nuanced guidance on the extent of gubernatorial discretion, potentially redefining the boundaries of executive power in India's federal framework. Moreover, the reference highlights the broader utility of Article 143(1) as a mechanism for resolving constitutional ambiguities. Unlike regular litigation, which is adversarial and case-specific, advisory opinions allow the court to address systemic issues in a non-contentious manner, offering clarity to policymakers and constitutional functionaries. This process strengthens India's constitutional framework by fostering dialogue between the judiciary and other organs of the state. The objections that have been raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala, while rooted in a respect for judicial precedent, do not undermine the constitutional validity of the President's reference under Article 143(1). The provision is designed to address questions of public importance, even those previously adjudicated, provided they carry significant constitutional weight. The Supreme Court's discretion to entertain such references, coupled with its historical practice, supports the legitimacy of this process. As the Constitution Bench prepares to hear this matter, its opinion—whether it upholds the existing precedent or offers a fresh perspective—will shape the discourse on the Governor's role and the delicate balance of power in India's federal system. This exercise, far from undermining judicial authority, exemplifies the dynamic interplay of constitutional mechanisms in addressing complex governance challenges. (The writer is a senior Advocate)
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
MBC quota: Anbumani slams DMK for extending deadline of BC panel
CHENNAI: The state's decision to extend the deadline for the State Backwards Classes Commission to examine and submit its report on demand for internal reservation for MBCs and DNCs by another year drew sharp criticism from PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss. In a statement on Saturday, Anbumani termed the decision a mockery of social justice. He said the initial three-month deadline granted to the commission has now stretched to 30 months without even an interim report being submitted. Anbumani said the government has now extended the deadline to July 11, 2026, even though the current tenure of the commission, headed by Justice Bharathidasan, is set to end in November 2025. Questions have also been raised over who will head the commission after that and whether the current members will be reappointed. The Supreme Court, in its order dated March 31, 2022, striking down the 10.5 % quota for Vaniyars, had clarified that there was no legal bar on granting internal reservation to Vanniyars, provided adequate data was collected, Anbumani claimed. 'It is unacceptable that a task to be completed in three months has dragged on for years. Both the government and the commission are duty-bound to uphold social justice,' he said.
