Supreme Court justices voiced alarm at the Enforcement Directorate’s escalation in issuing summons to legal professionals, declaring the practice an overstep that could jeopardise the sanctity of legal counsel. The bench, headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai alongside Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, emphasised that lawyer‑client communications must remain confidential, and that issuing notices to advocates is unacceptable.
Attorney‑General R Venkataramani admitted that the ED erred in its actions involving senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, who had been summoned in connection with a money‑laundering investigation. He confirmed that all investigative agencies have now been instructed to avoid summoning lawyers for offering legal advice to clients. Solicitor‑General Tushar Mehta reinforced that lawyers cannot be interrogated for rendering legal opinions, stating the matter has been addressed at the highest levels.
The bench raised pointed questions: can agencies summon a legal adviser acting solely in professional capacity, or should judicial oversight be mandated when exceptions arise? These queries hint at a judicial effort to define clear norms and frame enforceable guidelines.
Chief Justice Gavai expressed personal shock at the ED’s actions and affirmed that the court’s remarks are rooted in judicial fact-finding, not media influence. He stressed that even incorrect advice by lawyers is legally protected under privileged communication, reinforcing that such exchanges cannot be subjected to summons.
Legal associations have voiced strong opposition. Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh warned against following the path of jurisdictions like Turkey and China, cautioning that such practices could erode legal independence. The Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association also called the ED’s move a “disturbing trend that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession”.
The summit of judicial action was demonstrated in June when a different bench issued a stay on a Gujarat advocate’s summons, emphasising the threat to justice system autonomy and hinting at necessary judicial oversight.
ED has formally responded: on 20 June, it directed that no advocate shall be summoned in money‑laundering cases unless approved by the agency’s director, aligning its actions with Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Yet counsel told the court this may still chill legal representation, warning of undue intimidation across the profession.
Tuesday’s proceedings focused on shaping robust guidelines. The court sought submissions from all stakeholders—AG, SG, Bar Council, SCBA, SCAORA—urging comprehensive notes and permitting wider interventions. The bench set the next hearing for 29 July to further refine these safeguards.
This episode highlights growing anxieties over investigative agencies potentially encroaching on constitutionally protected roles of legal counsel. The Supreme Court appears determined to define strict boundaries, ensuring confidentiality and legal autonomy while addressing legitimate exceptions through clearly defined protocols.
Probe Into Duplicate Signature in Judge Removal Motion 