Latest news with #SupremeCourtBarAssociation
Hindustan Times
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Lawyers merely giving legal opinion to clients who are under probe should not be summoned by agencies: SC
New Delhi, If a person is merely acting as a lawyer, then he should not be summoned by probe agencies for rendering legal opinion to a client who is under investigation, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. 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.
News18
08-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
Laws To Legacy: New Book Captures PM Modi's 11-Year Governance Journey
Last Updated: 'Modi's Niti Shastra: The World's His Oyster': Home Minister Amit Shah said the book provides a profound analysis of India's legal transformation under PM Modi's leadership As Prime Minister Narendra Modi completes 11 years of his tenure, senior Advocate and former President of Supreme Court Bar Association Adish Aggarwala has come up with a book capturing this journey. The book titled 'Modi's Niti Shastra: The World's His Oyster' reflects upon the Prime Minister's transformative impact in politics, economics, social equity, citizen welfare, national security, and governance. Home Minister Amit Shah praised the release of the book, calling it 'a matter of abundant joy" as the NDA government marks 11 years in power. Shah also emphasised that the book provides a profound analysis of India's legal transformation under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership, highlighting the sweeping reforms that have reshaped the nation's legislative landscape. Amit Shah, in his remarks, highlighted how Prime Minister Narendra Modi's governance philosophy effortlessly integrates citizen welfare with the restoration of India's rich cultural and historical legacy. In a Foreword to the book, Union Minister for Law & Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, said that it 'offers a profound perspective on the transformative journey of good governance under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji." The book highlights the creation of of new Acts, significant amendments to existing legislation, the scrapping of over 1,500 obsolete colonial-era laws, and the elimination of more than 3,000 burdensome compliance requirements. These efforts reflect a modern, streamlined, and citizen-centric approach to lawmaking. First Published: June 08, 2025, 19:49 IST
United News of India
27-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SCBA polls face judicial scrutiny, SC orders recount amid charges of irregularities
New Delhi, May 27(UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition challenging the recently concluded Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, which led to serious deliberations over alleged electoral irregularities and demands for greater transparency. A special bench comprising justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan presided over the proceedings. The petitioners raised several concerns, including inconsistencies in vote counts, duplicate voting incidents, and a call for a re-election to restore trust in the process. Senior Advocates Dr. Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai presented their submissions, alongside the SCBA Election Committee's response through senior advocate Vijay Hansaria. At the outset, Justice Kant urged decorum and professionalism, stating, 'We can sit till midnight if needed, but please do not get agitated. Things are being recorded and can go viral.' Dr Aggarwala requested that certain matters be discussed in chambers, but the bench chose to maintain transparency by conducting proceedings in open court. He alleged that candidate Vikas Singh had canvassed for votes after the conclusion of the election debate. However, the court noted that such issues should have been raised earlier. Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, a presidential candidate, informed the bench that a recount showed 2,576 votes, significantly fewer than the 2,651 votes officially declared on May 20. He cited discrepancies, including a case where a voter named Chandan Kumar reportedly found his vote already cast but was still allowed to vote again after intervention. Rai stressed that such irregularities raised doubts over the legitimacy of the results, though he did not question the integrity of the election committee members. In response, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the election committee, refuted allegations of bias and said such claims had caused pain to the committee. He clarified that a 'bona fide calculation error' had occurred but insisted it did not affect the overall outcome. The committee had received 19 representations, including one against Dr Aggarwala alleging gift distribution to sway voters. Justice Kant, in a light moment, advised Hansaria not to take harsh remarks personally. However, he sternly warned that threats or coercion would discourage capable individuals from participating in the electoral process. The bench praised the committee's work and reiterated its support, saying their conduct was akin to a fair tribunal. The court directed a fresh recount of votes for the nine executive member posts in addition to the recount for the President's post. It emphasized that young lawyers' morale should not be undermined due to unresolved doubts. Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the bench that 14 complaints had been received on the executive member elections. The court said the recount will commence immediately after the courts reopen following the Partial Working Days (PWD) break. The court accepted the election committee's proposal to involve an independent agency, avoiding bar volunteers to ensure impartiality. It also agreed to deploy Supreme Court staff to assist in the recount. The bench clarified, 'Candidates or their nominees may observe the recount but must not interfere.' On May 26, the court had ordered a recount in light of serious concerns raised by multiple candidates. The bench had then observed, 'Let no candidate have any doubt. Let there be recounting for all elections wherever there is a complaint,' and directed that results be withheld until the final recount report is submitted. The court has also previously expressed satisfaction with women's representation in the executive committee. On May 22, the bench noted with pride that three women lawyers were elected as senior executive members and remarked, 'This shows a very liberal and pragmatic approach. The bar has gone on the merit of the candidates, not gender.' The petition challenging the elections had earlier invoked the precedent of SCBA vs. BD Kaushik, but the bench clarified that the principle of women's representation had been well served in this instance. Justice Kant said, 'We want your representation… we want women to have the instinct to compete. We are proud that three of our sisters have made it.' The matter will now be taken up again in July after the court's vacation period, during which the bench has invited further suggestions from stakeholders. UNI SNG PRS
Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Adani to Ambani: Sibal gets India Inc to pay Rs 50 cr for lawyers' health cover
SENIOR ADVOCATE Kapil Sibal, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has raised Rs 50 crore from a few big industrialists to fund a group medical insurance policy for the Bar's members, has met with opposition from a section within the association. 'As the new SCBA president, my first endeavour will be to discuss this policy in the Executive Committee meeting… My personal view is that this policy definitely needs to be renegotiated or scrapped, because the premium that we are paying for a Rs 2 lakh cover is highly disproportionate to the premium that we pay for a Rs 5 lakh cover,' Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who was elected the new president of the Bar body last week, told The Indian Express. At a General Body Meeting of the SCBA on May 5, Singh had expressed his opposition. To a question on whether Sibal's endeavour raised issues of conflict of interest, Singh said it depends on whether these are CSR funds. 'There is no conflict if its not CSR funds as the money is given to the association and not to any individual,' he said. When contacted, Sibal said, 'There is no conflict of interest here. Where is the question? The donation is to the association and not to any member. Moreover, personally, I have and may appear again against or in favour of many of these companies. And I charge them. Our professional career is not based on our friendships.' Sibal said Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries) contributed Rs 10 crore, while Anil Ambani (Reliance Group), Gautam Adani (Adani Group), N Chandrasekharan (Tata Sons), Samir Mehta (Torrent Group), G M Rao (GMR Group), Kumar Mangalam Birla (Aditya Birla Group), Anil Aggarwal (Vedanta) and Lakshmi Mittal (ArcelorMittal) gave Rs 5 crore each. He said corporates would get tax exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Donations made to specified institutions are allowed to be deducted from the taxable income under Section 80G. SCBA's new President Singh said his attempt would be (to ensure) that this policy was made available only to needy members of the Bar or members who support elderly parents. 'It should not be made available for people like us. The policy, as announced by the earlier Executive Committee, is meant for everybody, including me, Mr Sibal etc. This kind of money can never be utilised for that…All this will be done only after discussing with my Executive Committee.' According to Sibal, 95 per cent of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court do not earn well. 'They come from all over the country to Delhi…to practise…most of them are not earning well… they have to spend money on rent, their families… and if they fall ill, have to foot medical bills.' He said there are about 2,700-2,800 members of the SCBA who have voting rights, and will be eligible for the health cover. Addressing an event organised by the SCBA on May 21, Sibal explained how he went about raising the money. 'I started sort of collecting from those who I have served for the last 52 years… I rang up Anil Aggarwal of Vedanta. He readily agreed and gave us a contribution of Rs 5 crore. I rang up Anil Ambani, a dear friend of mine, and he had no choice but to say yes. So he gave Rs 5 crore. I rang up the GMR Group, both Mr Rao as well as Mr Bhaskar Chandran… and they said, 'Sir, now that you have asked, we will make sure that it happens', and it happened, Rs 5 crore,' said Sibal. 'I rang up Gautam Adani, and I said it's time for you to contribute because you are more or less the emperor of India now and Rs 5 crore is too little for you. He said if you want more, I will give more, but here is Rs 5 crore. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' Sibal said. 'Mr Kumar Mangalam Birla, again an old friend of mine… served the Birla empire for many years…never asked them for anything. So I said, another Rs 5 crore from you, and he said yes,' he said. 'Then I rang up another friend of mine, Lakshmi Mittal from London. He picked up the phone and I made that request. He said somebody will get in touch with you soon. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' he said. 'Then again, Mukesh Ambani. I knew Dhirubhai Ambani when I was a young lawyer and we had a very warm relationship…These boys were kids and they used to come to me and I used to do most of their matters in Bombay. So I asked him and he said how much do you want. I said Rs 10 crore. He said you will have the cheque soon. So he gave Rs 10 crore,' Sibal said. 'Then I rang up Natarajan Chandrasekaran of Tata, whom I also know very well…and he also did not hesitate. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' the senior counsel said. 'And from the Torrent Group, Mr Samir Mehta, again a good friend of mine, and, in fact, Dushyant Dave told me, if he doesn't give it, let me know, I will make a call to him. But it didn't really happen. I asked him, he gave Rs 5 crore… In this process, we have Rs 50 crore with us,' Sibal said. He also outlined what was done after raising the amount. 'I contacted Apollo group, who are also my clients. I know the head of the family, head of the Apollo group is an old friend of mine. So I said look, we want you to handle this. He sort of looked at the market and got hold of a company called the National Insurance Company. And we started talking to the National Insurance Company as to what kind of benefits our young lawyers can get. I want to tell you… there is no insurance policy in this country that gives so many benefits as this one does,' he said. Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, who also addressed the event, congratulated the SCBA for raising Rs 50 crore. 'Undoubtedly, this is a remarkable achievement that reflects deep concern for the welfare of the legal community,' he said. Pointing to the difficulties that young lawyers face with no regular income to meet their needs, the CJI said: 'Providing good health insurance, therefore, is not just a welfare measure, it is a vital support system. It offers the lawyers a degree of financial security and peace of mind in times of medical need.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
New Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
When the bar turns to billionaires: What ₹50 crore in donations says about the state of India's legal profession
At the Supreme Court's 75th anniversary celebrations on Wednesday, Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal proudly announced that on his appeal a handful of India's top industrialists had written checks totaling Rs 50 crore so that lawyers registered with SCBA can have free, cashless health insurance up to the tune of Rs 2 lakh each. On the face of it, it may seem like an innocuous, even laudatory act. But if one thinks hard, it marks a deeply troubling moment for the legal profession in the country. In many ways, it's also a stark indictment of the rapidly eroding standards in India's public life. For generations of lawyers, legal idealism and the Indian Constitution have remained their true north. In our constitutional democracy, lawyers have played a vital role in upholding the rule of law and defending individual liberties and freedoms. The likes of Nani Palkhivala, MC Setalvad, CK Daphtary, and Shanti Bhushan not only set high standards for professional ethics and advocacy; they also influenced the course of our constitutional law and its evolution. It is therefore essential that the legal profession must neither be beholden to big capital nor reliant on state patronage. What message does SCBA's act of seeking crumbs off the plate of India's filthy rich send to the ordinary litigants who turn to the Supreme Court as the ultimate forum for justice and relief? That even the lawyers practicing at the highest court of the land must rely on the generosity of the ultra-wealthy to secure ₹2 lakh in annual health coverage? That the haloed profession is dependent on the charity of those who are most entangled with the legal system? Telling selection The selection of industrialists approached for this so-called charity is telling. Some of the corporate groups involved here rank among the most frequent and influential litigants before the Supreme Court. Many of these benefactors regularly face judicial and public scrutiny—often standing on the opposite side of legal battles against project-displaced people, farmers, public interest litigants, or vulnerable communities. This sort of chumminess between the legal profession and the most powerful corporate litigants cannot be healthy for the profession or for the system of justice itself. Poor litigants already hold a very dim view of the justice system. Many believe that justice is not delivered but bought. When important emblems of the justice system—like the SCBA—appear to be dependent on handouts from select powerful industrialists, it would further deepen the commonly-held skepticism in the justice delivery system. Ironically, the bar council of India's rules lays much stress on the independence of lawyers. We are perhaps the only country in the world that doesn't allow law professors to practice law in the courts. The rationale is that salaried employment compromises a lawyer's independence and their ability to act with undivided loyalty to a client or the court. Seen in this light, how disturbing it is that the profession as a whole is parading its financial vulnerability to the point of seeking donations. And that too from industrialists who, because of the nature and extent of their business activities, are among the highest-paying clients, involved in multiple litigations, and deal in regulated and core sectors directly affecting the common man. Chump change that lays bare a harsh truth It's also important to put the total sum of ₹50 crore donated by two Ambanis, Adani, Birla, Mittal, Mehta of Torrent Group, and Agarwal of Vedanta Group in perspective. It is 1% of what Mukesh Ambani recently spent (approximately ₹5,000 crore) on the wedding of his youngest son, Anant Ambani. It is 0.5% of ₹10,000 crore that Gautam Adani pledged for social causes during his son Jeet's wedding. It is a fraction of the total amount of electoral bonds the Vedanta Group purchased between April 2019 and January 2024. The point is that Rs 5 crore or 10 crore of donation is chump change for these industrialists. On the other hand, the integrity and independence of the legal profession are priceless. The bar and the bench are sacred pillars on which the credibility of the justice system rests. Therefore, the act of seeking donations from a select few corporate groups to fund a health insurance scheme for lawyers undermines the sanctity of a profession that has been at the vanguard of India's independence, its constitutional founding, and its democratic framework. It also tells of the dangerous place we have arrived at as a nation—the extreme concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few. The inequality of wealth and income has reached such extreme proportions that elite philanthropy is seen as a normal substitute for state welfarism and social protections. When even institutions like SCBA become dependent on donations from the billionaires, it signals something far deeper: the creeping monopolisation by big capital of the society itself. Beyond reflecting the broader wealth inequality in general, this move also underscores the deep disparities and dysfunctionalities within the administration of the legal profession itself. The annual premium for a ₹2 lakh health insurance policy typically ranges from ₹4,000 to ₹6,500 per year. The fact that SCBA members are expected to be grateful for donations that merely save them a few thousand rupees in annual insurance premiums lays bare a harsh truth: only a small section of lawyers earn substantial fees, while the rest struggle. Lack of a level-playing field and some vital questions There is a lack of a level-playing field between established legal chambers and newcomers. To a large extent, the legal practice, especially in the Supreme Court, is clannish. A small group of senior advocates dominates high-stakes litigation, often taking on dozens of briefs each week, crowding out junior advocates. Volumes have been written critiquing elitism, exclusion, and influence-driven selections of designation of 'Senior Advocates.' Judges, too, are mostly selected from a narrow pool of senior lawyers. The conflict of interest among senior advocates is rampant. Unlike in many foreign jurisdictions, leading lawyers in India often represent the same client in one case and then appear against them in another—sometimes on the very same day. Many leading lawyers are openly aligned with political parties, some even are Rajya Sabha members. Some have kept on switching roles as advocates, parliamentarians, and party spokespersons. This casts a serious shadow over their allegiance to the profession and their duty to the court. India also does not have a legal culture strongly promoting pro bono work by the top lawyers and elite law firms. On the other hand, most foreign jurisdictions, like the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada, either greatly encourage or mandate pro bono work. At several elite law firms in the US—like Skadden, Sullivan & Cromwell, and WilmerHale—pro bono work is valued equally with billable hours in performance evaluations. More than a handout from India's richest few, the legal profession in general and the SCBA in particular need systemic reforms. Shouldn't SCBA ask its leading lights to compulsorily take certain hours of pro bono work every week? Shouldn't SCBA debate policy questions like limits on the number of briefs a senior advocate can take in a week? These are important policy questions that need to be discussed. SCBA should also lay out a strong legal ethics framework for its members, with the most senior lawyers leading the way. Grave error of judgment Bar associations should be built around institutional funding, member dues, and endowments for public-interest programs—not private solicitations from powerful business houses. It would be unthinkable for the American Bar Association (ABA) or the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) to publicly seek donations from Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Warren Buffett to fund basic welfare schemes like health insurance for lawyers. The SCBA has shown a grave error of judgment in seeking donations from a few corporate honchos. It would have been better had the SCBA and its president focused more on democratising, reforming, and strengthening the legal profession. The SCBA should immediately return the Rs 50 crore. Else, it would leave a lasting stain on the profession. If medical insurance is such a pressing need, the top 10 highest-paid lawyers can donate the fees from their five individual appearances, and the corpus would most probably cross Rs 50 crore. As they say, charity begins at home. (Ashish Khetan is an Indian lawyer and journalist. Views are personal.)
