The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, hours after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the agency’s move, calling it a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege.
Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to appear before the ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on Friday afternoon informing him that the notice “stands withdrawn with immediate effect.”
The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar in the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as well, but that notice too was rescinded following backlash from the legal fraternity.
In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as “a deeply disquieting development,” and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law.
SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an “impermissible transgression” into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice.
{{/usCountry}}SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an “impermissible transgression” into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice.
{{/usCountry}}“The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,” the letter stated.
SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and called for the framing of clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future.
This is the second time in recent days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED’s notice to Datar as “unwarranted” and a manifestation of growing investigative overreach.
Similar concerns have echoed across the legal landscape. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution criticising the ED’s actions, warning of a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also convened an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent government action to protect lawyer-client privilege through amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
While ED has not formally disclosed reasons for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the move as an implicit recognition of the serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.