July 30, 2025

In a significant ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India addressed the legal breadth of lawyers' responsibilities when their clients are under investigation. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, articulated that a lawyer merely providing legal advice to a client should not be subject to summoning by investigative agencies. This landmark statement was made in response to increasing concerns about the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and other probe agencies summoning advocates during investigations, a practice which the court indicated could threaten the integrity and confidentiality inherent to the legal profession. Chief Justice Gavai noted, “If a lawyer is assisting a client in the crime, then he can be summoned. However, summoning lawyers merely for providing legal advice infringes upon the foundational confidentiality of lawyer-client communications.” The court's ruling coincided with a suo motu consideration regarding the arbitrary summoning of advocates, following vocal concerns from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAoRA). The court listened to detailed submissions from senior advocates like Vikas Singh, who raised alarms about the “chilling effect” that such arbitrary summons could impose on legal counsel. Singh cautioned that if lawyers are routinely targeted for offering legal opinions, it might inhibit them from serving their clients effectively in sensitive cases. Following this, he suggested enforcing protective measures—a proposal which the bench appeared to consider seriously—hinting that judicial oversight could serve as an essential safeguard against investigative overreach. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, acknowledged the court's stance on lawyers not being summoned solely for their advisory roles, emphasizing the paramount importance of preserving the sanctity of lawyer-client privileges. However, he also raised a point of caution, asserting that implementing measures limiting summons to lawyers alone, while excluding non-lawyers, could potentially violate principles of equality under Article 14. This dynamic conversation also brought to light the experiences of various senior advocates who faced being summoned in previous instances. For instance, Mehta mentioned how complaints regarding misuse were promptly addressed, with actions withdrawn shortly after being lodged. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi contributed by discussing in-house counsel's vulnerabilities, stressing the need for protective measures for this often-overlooked category of legal practitioners. Meanwhile, Sidharth Luthra highlighted concerns regarding the potential sources of fee payments to lawyers, referencing instances where payments could indirectly tie back to alleged criminal activities. Addressing these multifaceted concerns, counsel representing SCBA invoked principles of confidentiality, maintaining that being compelled to explain legal advice could lead to self-incrimination, thus sparking further scrutiny of legal dynamics. The Solicitor General added that well-known law firms should not be casually implicated, pointing to sensitive cases where accusations were misattributed. The bench took note of these nuances and directed that the written suggestions from SCBA and SCAoRA be forwarded to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General within three days for consideration. Importantly, the court emphasized a need for further hearings on August 12, signaling ongoing dialogue regarding appropriate guidelines governing the treatment of lawyers amid investigations. Earlier, the Supreme Court had voiced serious concerns about the ED’s actions, describing them as crossing acceptable boundaries, and necessitating the establishment of formal guidelines to protect the legal profession from undue pressure. The ED had previously announced a directive mandating that no summons should be issued to advocates without the director's prior approval, reflecting a shift in approach aimed at balancing regulatory enforcement with the protection of legal professionals. As the legal community awaits the responses and potential reforms suggested by the court, the incident draws attention to the critical nature of preserving professional integrity while upholding the rule of law.

Read More at Economictimes →

Tags: Supreme court, Lawyers, Legal advice, Enforcement directorate, Client confidentiality,