New Delhi: Supreme Court bar bodies SCBA and the SCAORA have condemned the ED notices to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for their legal advice to clients, saying the “disturbing trend” hit the very foundation of legal profession.
The anti-money laundering agency, however, withdrew its summons issued to the senior counsel.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) headed by senior advocate Vikas Singh and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) presided by advocate Vipin Nair took exception to the summons in their official communication.
“The issuance of such illegal notices and summons to the senior advocates and to the advocate-on-record reflect a disturbing trend, striking at the very foundations of the legal profession and undermining the independence of the Bar which is a core pillar of India’s Constitutional democrac?,” the SCBA’s statement issued through its secretary Pragya Baghel said.
The SCBA continued, “Independent judiciary and independent bar are the backbone of the democracy and if advocates or senior advocates are targeted in such manner then it is hitting the independence of the legal profession in its root.”
Nair wrote to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on the “deeply disquieting development” having “serious ramifications for the independence of the legal profession and the foundational principle of lawyer-client confidentiality”.
He wrote the letter following ED summons to Venugopal.
“It has come to our notice that senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, has received on June 19, summons dated June 18, by ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in its investigation into the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) granted by M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd for a purported legal opinion rendered by senior advocate Arvind Datar, wherein Pratap Venugopal, was the advocate-on-record, supporting the grant of stock options to former Religare enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja,” he said.
Section 50 of the PMLA deals with “powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.”
Venugopal, the letter said, was directed to appear before the ED on June 24.
“It would be imperative to mention that a similar notice was earlier issued by the ED to senior advocate Arvind Data, albeit withdrawn subsequently,” Nair added.
Venugopal was said to be a widely respected member of the legal fraternity with an “impeccable” sincerity and professional commitment.
“These actions, by the ED, we believe, amount to an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct lawyer-client privilege, and pose a serious threat to the autonomy and fearless functioning of advocates. Such unwarranted and coercive measures against senior members of the bar for discharge of professional duties set a dangerous precedent, potentially resulting in a chilling effect across the legal community,” the letter underscored.
The SCAORA said a lawyer’s role to offer legal advice was privileged and protected, and the interference of investigative agencies into this relationship without just cause and contrary to established legal norms, struck at the heart of the rule of law.
Such interventions could dissuade advocates from rendering honest, independent opinions in the discharge of their duties, the bar body said.
The SCAORA letter, as a result, urged the CJI to take suo motu cognisance of the matter and examine the issue of “the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions rendered in good faith”.
The other issues the CJI could examine were about safeguarding “the constitutional and professional protections afforded to advocates” and laying down “appropriate guidelines to prevent any further erosion of lawyer-client privilege and uphold the independence of the bar”, the letter added.
In a similar action previously, the ED summoned Datar in the same case.
On Friday, the SCBA expressed its concerns in a statement, which read, “Every person has a right for a legal representation and thus, advocates cannot be targeted for rendering his assistance and giving legal opinion.”
Even otherwise, advocates cannot be summoned for rendering professional advice in view of Section 132 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) of 2023 which deals with professional privilege, it added.
“Advocates are officers of the court, and their role is integral to the fair and impartial administration of justice. The manner in which the Enforcement Directorate has sought to summon respected members of our Bar reflects an illegal, perverse and intimidatory use of state power,” the SCBA said.
