NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on July 21 a Suo Motu Cognisance (SMC) case in connection with the issue of probe agencies summoning advocates who offer legal opinions or represent parties during the investigation of cases.
According to the causelist of the top court, the matter is scheduled to come up for hearing on July 21, Monday, before a three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria.
The top court had taken SMC on July 8, after it took note of the fact that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had summoned senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for their offering of legal opinions or representing parties during the investigation of cases to their respective clients.
It is to be noted that this SMC power is assigned to courts in Articles 32 and 226, which deal with the enforcement of fundamental rights, and Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court broad powers. SMC refers to SC taking action on its own, without a formal petition or complaint.
The top court enforced the SMC in recent cases in which two senior lawyers -- Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal -- were summoned for reportedly giving legal advice or opinion in a case. However, after a hue and cry by the legal fraternity the ED withdrew its summons to these two lawyers.
The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) President Vipin Nair had earlier written to the CJI Gavai on the "deeply disquieting development" having "serious ramifications for the independence of the legal profession and the foundational principle of lawyer-client confidentiality".
After the unfortunate incident, Venugopal, talking to TNIE, said, the ED action of summoning him was completely illegal, unconstitutional, and unwarranted.
"It is sad and unforunate. The action of issuing summons to Advocates is an alarming practice and besides being wholly contrary to the provisions of Sec 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, seeks to intimidate Advocates from advising clients and further identifies Advocates with their clients, which is contrary to well established principles," Venugopal said.
SCAORA said that Venugopal is “a widely respected member of the legal fraternity,” whose professional record and sincerity led to his designation as a Senior Advocate earlier this year.
“These actions, by the ED, we believe, amount to an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct lawyer-client privilege,” the letter continues, warning that such coercive measures could have a chilling effect on the legal community," the SCAORA said.
Requesting the Supreme Court to act decisively, the Association urged the Court to examine the legality and propriety of such summonses to legal professionals. "Safeguard the constitutional and professional protections afforded to advocates. Lay down guidelines to prevent further erosion of lawyer-client privilege," it said.
The SCAORA further opined that the role of an advocate, in offering legal advice, is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies strikes at the heart of the rule of law.
The letter added for an appeal to the SC to uphold the independence of the Bar and prevent any misuse of executive power that could undermine the dignity of the legal profession.
Similarly, Datar was also summoned by the,ED for giving legal advice to his client in a case in which investigation was going on.