'Dangerous Precedent': SCAORA Deplores ED Summons To Sr Adv Pratap Venugopal; Urges CJI To Take Suo Motu Cognizance

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has written to the Chief Justice of India seeking suo motu cognizance of Enforcement Directorate's issuance of summons to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal over legal advice tendered to a client.

To recap, on June 18, ED issued summons to Venugopal over legal advice given by him to M/s Care Health Insurance on the ESOP (employee stock ownership) issued to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Dr Rashmi Saluja. Prior to that, similar summons were issued to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar; these were however later withdrawn.

Apparently, when the legal opinion was tendered by Datar, Venugopal was the AoR supporting grant of stock options to Dr Saluja. Now a senior advocate (since his designation in January, 2025), he has been directed by the ED to appear on June 24 (earlier fixed as June 27).

Stating that ED's action has serious ramifications for "independence of the legal profession" and the "foundational principle of lawyer-client privilege", the letter, addressed to CJI Gavai by SCAORA President Vipin Nair, requests:

- Examination of the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions tendered in good faith;

- Safeguarding of the constitutional and professional protections afforded to advocates;

- Laying down of appropriate guidelines to prevent any further erosion of lawyer-client privilege and upholding independence of the Bar.

"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", SCAORA states.

The Bar body further asserts that the role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. As such, interference by investigating agencies, contrary to established legal norms, strike at the heart of rule of law. It could dissuade advocates from tendering honest opinions, SCAORA says.

Also Read - 'Threatens Independence Of Legal Profession' : Supreme Court Bar Body Condemns ED Summons To Arvind Datar Over Legal Opinion