New Delhi: On Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued a summons notice to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal to appear before it on June 24 under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
On Friday afternoon, the advocate received a text message from the central agency informing him that the notice “stands withdrawn with immediate effect,” reported Hindustan Times.
This follows a strong protest from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the ED’s move.
The advocates’ body said ED’s notice to Venugopal represented a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege.
The summons was in connection with an 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. Interestingly, Datar was also summoned by ED a few days ago, but that notice was also rescinded following severe backlash from the legal fraternity.
Describing the summons to Venugopal as “a deeply disquieting development,” SCAORA president Vipin Nair warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and fundamental tenets of the rule of law.
In a letter dated June 20, Nair asserted that such actions amounted to an “impermissible transgression” into the constitutionally-protected sphere of legal advice.
“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 legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and also sought clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future.
The ED has not disclosed why it withdrew the summons to Venugopal, but senior members of the Bar believe it’s a recognition of serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.
