Supreme Court Slams ED: In a significant development that may reshape the boundaries of legal practice and investigative authority in India, the Supreme Court has sharply criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for summoning senior advocates simply for offering legal advice. Calling it a case of the agency “crossing all limits,” the apex court has taken suo motu cognisance of the issue, emphasizing the urgent need to establish firm guidelines safeguarding lawyer-client confidentiality.
SC Raises Alarm Over ED’s Overreach
On Monday, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, alongside Justice K Vinod Chandran, expressed serious concern over the ED issuing summons to renowned lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The advocates were reportedly called for giving professional legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited regarding an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) for Rashmi Saluja, the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
The Bench was unequivocal in its response:
“Even if it’s wrong, the communication between a lawyer and the client is a privileged communication. How can notices be issued against them? There should be some guidelines… They (ED) are crossing all limits.”
Legal Community and Government React
Both Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed with the Court’s concerns. They acknowledged that the issue had reached the highest executive levels, and the ED had been advised to refrain from summoning lawyers solely for rendering legal opinions.
Mehta said,
“The moment I heard about Mr. Datar, I immediately brought it to the notice of the highest Executive.”
Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), called on the court to establish clear and lasting judicial direction.
“India should not go the way of other nations where the independence of the legal profession has been compromised. My Lords may set it down once and for all,” Singh asserted.
He highlighted parallels with Turkey, where the entire bar association was disbanded, and China, which faces global criticism for silencing its legal community.
A Dangerous Precedent?
Legal experts warn that allowing probe agencies to target advocates for performing their duties could set a dangerous precedent. One lawyer noted that such practices could have a chilling effect on the entire justice delivery system, preventing lawyers from freely advising their clients without fear of retaliation.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) echoed this sentiment, calling the trend disturbing and one that strikes at the foundations of the legal profession.
Media Narratives and Institutional Trust
The CJI also addressed public perception issues surrounding this controversy. While Solicitor General Mehta warned about “false narratives” against institutions, the CJI responded with clarity:
“We are finding this (overstepping by ED) in many cases… We don’t watch the news or YouTube interviews. Only last week I managed to watch a few movies.”
The CJI also advised Mehta not to politicize the matter, especially when Mehta hinted at politicians attempting to shape public opinion.
Next Steps: Guidelines in the Making
The Supreme Court has permitted intervention applications, instructing all concerned parties — including the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) — to submit detailed notes on the issue. The matter is set for its next hearing on July 29, 2025.
This move follows the Court’s suo motu cognisance taken on July 13, aimed at defending the independence and integrity of the legal profession. Earlier, on June 25, the Court had strongly objected to investigative agencies summoning lawyers for legal counsel, calling such actions a “direct threat to the administration of justice.”
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a pivotal moment in the evolving relationship between legal advisors and investigative authorities. As the nation watches closely, the upcoming July 29 hearing could result in landmark judicial guidelines that reinforce the independence of the legal profession and uphold constitutional rights to legal counsel and confidentiality.
The legal community, judiciary, and civil society await with anticipation — not just for a ruling, but for a safeguard against any further erosion of justice and professional autonomy in India.