A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Okay Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria delivered the decision in a suo motu case taken up after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoned senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in reference to a cash laundering probe.
Announcing the decision, Justice Chandran mentioned the bench had sought to “harmonise the exemption to the rule” defending advocates and issued contemporary instructions to safeguard the authorized occupation from undue stress by probe companies.
The bench mentioned probe companies shall not subject summons to any advocate in search of particulars of shoppers, until it's lined underneath the related regulation.
It mentioned the digital units of attorneys will be seized solely earlier than a jurisdictional courtroom and they are often opened solely of their presence and events after the objections are overruled.
Setting apart the ED's summons issued earlier to the attorneys, the bench mentioned they infringed the elemental rights of accused who employed advocates. “The summons may lead to infringement of the elemental rights of the accused who had reposed religion within the lawyer,” the bench mentioned, terming such actions violative of statutory safeguards.”Investigating authorities shall not subject summons to any advocate in search of particulars of the shopper, until it's lined underneath the exceptions in Part 132,” the courtroom held, referring to the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the brand new regulation which changed the Proof Act.
The detailed judgement is awaited.
On August 12, the bench had reserved its verdict within the matter, calling itself the “custodian of all residents within the nation” whereas addressing issues about probe companies in search of to query attorneys representing accused individuals.
The suo motu proceedings had been initiated after the ED summoned Datar and Venugopal, a transfer sharply criticised by the Supreme Court docket Bar Affiliation (SCBA) and the Supreme Court docket Advocates-on-Document Affiliation (SCAORA) as a “disturbing pattern” undermining the authorized occupation.
Following the controversy, the ED had on June 20 issued inner instructions barring its officers from summoning advocates in cash laundering circumstances besides with prior approval of the Director and in compliance with Part 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
