NEW DELHI: In a significant development impacting the legal community, the Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance of the practice of summoning advocates by investigative agencies during criminal investigations. The apex court has decided to frame guidelines to safeguard the independence of the legal profession and ensure that lawyer-client privilege remains protected.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, will hear the matter on July 14, marking the court’s return from its summer vacation.
Background
The suo motu case—titled “Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Agencies in Criminal Investigations”—was initiated following rising concerns that investigative authorities are increasingly calling lawyers for questioning over legal opinions given in good faith or for simply representing their clients.
Earlier, on June 25, a bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh took note of a plea filed by a Gujarat-based lawyer. The bench observed:
“Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice.”
The Court emphasized that the legal profession is an essential part of the justice system, and any attempt to summon lawyers for their professional advice jeopardizes their independence and the sanctity of legal confidentiality.
ED’s Summons to Senior Lawyers Triggers Bar Outcry
The issue gained national attention after the Enforcement Directorate (ED), in June 2025, issued summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The summons were related to a legal opinion given in connection with Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) granted by Care Health Insurance Ltd. to Rashmi Saluja, former Chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
While the ED later withdrew the summons amid intense backlash, the development sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity. Bar associations and senior lawyers called the move a “dangerous precedent” with serious ramifications for the independence of the Bar and the rule of law.
Bar Associations Seek Supreme Court Intervention
On June 20, Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, wrote to Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, urging the Court to take suo motu cognisance of the ED’s actions. In the letter, he raised alarm over the “deeply disquieting development” of targeting lawyers for opinions rendered in good faith.
“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,” Nair wrote.
The term “chilling effect” refers to the deterrent impact on individuals or professionals who may refrain from exercising their lawful rights or duties due to fear of legal retaliation or coercive actions by authorities.
Nair emphasized that the role of an advocate in giving legal advice is constitutionally protected, and interference without due process violates fundamental principles of justice. The letter also cited Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which safeguards privileged communication between a lawyer and their client.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court is expected to lay down comprehensive guidelines to ensure that investigative agencies do not abuse their powers by summoning lawyers without lawful justification. The hearing scheduled on July 14 is likely to have wide-ranging consequences for legal professionals across the country.
This move could become a landmark moment in protecting lawyer-client confidentiality, preserving the independence of the Bar, and reinforcing the rule of law in India.
