New Delhi, Jun 25: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and was a “direct threat” to the independence of justice administration.
A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh observed the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice.
“Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice,” the apex court said.
The bench also framed a couple of questions in the matter.
“Some of the questions which arise for consideration are: (1) when an individual has a association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?” the bench asked.
The other question read, “Assuming that the investigating agency or prosecuting agency or police have a case that role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then, should they be directly permitted to summon or should a judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?” Both points aside from other issues, the bench said, could arise and require addressal on a comprehensive basis for “what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties”.
The bench said since it was a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice, “to subject a professional… when he is a counsel in the matter… prima facie appears to be untenable, subject to further consideration by the court”.
The order came when the top court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12.
The high court on March 2025 refused to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in a case against his client.
The top court, however, directed the state not to summon him till further orders and stayed the operation of the police’s notice issued to him.
The bench also issued notice to Gujarat government, asking for its response.
The top court noted an agreement was executed in June last year between two persons in a loan transaction.
In February, one of them got an FIR registered against the other following which the accused was arrested.
The top court noted the petitioner before it was engaged as a lawyer by the accused and he moved a bail application on behalf of his client before a sessions court in Ahmedabad.
The court granted bail to the accused.
However, a police notice in March summoned the lawyer to appear before police within three days.
The issue assumes significance as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 20 directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in a money laundering investigation being carried out against their client, adding that exception to this rule could only be made after “approval” by the agency’s director.
The probe agency’s statement came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy stemming from ED’s summons to senior Supreme Court lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.
The counsel had offered legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited (CHIL) on the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
The summons was condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which called it a “disturbing trend” that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession.
The bar bodies urged the chief justice of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.
On Wednesday, the top court said lawyers engaged in legal practice, apart from their fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, had certain rights and privileges guaranteed being legal professionals and further as a result of statutory provisions.
Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution deals with right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Underlining the issue as important, the bench called for assistance of the attorney general, the solicitor general, chairperson of the Bar Council of India, and the presidents of the SCBA and SCAORA.
The bench asked the case papers to be placed before the CJI for passing appropriate directions. (Agencies)
Leave a Comment
