There May Be Instances Where Summoning Is Required: ED Tells Supreme Court In Suo Motu Case On Summoning Of Lawyers

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard submissions by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, Siddharth Luthra, and others.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could serve as a model for similar safeguards in police action. “Unless someone is directly involved…” began the CJI, to which Singh responded, “Nobody is saying that if somebody is falling in the proviso they should be given protection… Two safeguards I have in mind; there should be some authority in the police like a senior SP, and he will have to place it before the Magistrate. In this way, the person and the prosecution will be protected.”

Singh warned that if advocates are routinely summoned for rendering legal advice, it would deter lawyers from taking up sensitive criminal matters. “If this is allowed, no lawyer will take up any serious cases… There has to be some direct evidence against the advocate and then summons can be issued… We don’t want the profession to suffer. If this is done routinely, no lawyer will think of advising someone in a sensitive criminal case.”

The Chief Justice clarified, “According to you, the permission should be from the SP and then placed before the magistrate.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, stated, “My stand is very clear, the lawyer cannot be summoned for an opinion which is privileged… The moment one stray incident happens…” When the CJI pointed out, “No, there are two,” the SG explained, “In the second case, the lawyer was a member of the Board of Directors which was discussing, and it was brought to the notice and within six hours a circular was issued.”

The SG further stated, “If there is any misuse, now there is a provision… ED Director’s permission is required. As far as permission from a magistrate is concerned, it will amount to amending the law and it would lead to a classification.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that ED is different from other agencies as it tracks the flow of money. The SG added, “If I have proceeds of crime and I engage Mr. Luthra and pay him, he will also have proceeds of crime, but he cannot be summoned.”

The Bench was also informed that the bank accounts of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas had been seized for two years. Singh submitted, “If I know that there is certain protection for me, then I will be able to advise freely.” He added that when the ED is examining fees received, the magistrate should presume that it was bona fide.

The CJI queried, “Would that not be the work of the legislature?”

Counsel for SCAORA submitted that even the threat of action against a lawyer from the opposing side amounts to contempt and is contrary to the justice delivery system. The SG reiterated, “For individual cases, it would not be good justification to change the present statutory frame.”

CJI Gavai clarified, “We have said in beginning itself that if somebody is assisting the client in the crime, then he be summoned…but not merely for giving legal advice… We are only restricting ourselves when a person acts as a lawyer.”

The SG added, “As far as individual instances are concerned, it may not be suitable to amend the laws for it. As a lawyer, even I want to be protected and so does Mr. Attorney. There may be instances where summoning is required. Any further layering of legislation may counter that… Getting some additional protection on the basis of one or two instances may not be advisable.”

Luthra emphasised that the matter touches upon two vital issues: (1) the right to access justice, where an individual places faith in the system by consulting a lawyer; and (2) party confidentiality.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani stated, “We should not blur the distinction between what is legitimate and illegitimate…”

The CJI observed, “We are very clear, something like Section 197 for public servant is there.”

The Bench recorded in its order, “We have heard the counsel who have emphasised the need for guidelines to protect the lawyers from the misuse of the provision by police, ED etc. Suggestions have also been made by SCBA and SCAORA.”

The Bench directed that all intervention applications be allowed and noted that counsel had stressed the importance of framing guidelines to prevent misuse of the provision against lawyers. The Court instructed that suggestions be submitted to the Attorney General and Solicitor General within three days and fixed the matter for hearing the Union’s response on August 12.

Background

The issue has gained prominence following instances where lawyers have reportedly been summoned by investigating agencies over legal advice given to clients, particularly in sensitive matters. In a previous hearing on June 26, 2025, a Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh restrained Gujarat Police from summoning an advocate in connection with a case involving his client, and referred the broader issue to the Chief Justice of India.

The Court had then observed, "What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously and fearlessly discharge their professional duties… Subjecting the counsel in a case to the beck and call of the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police prima facie appears to be completely untenable."

It also stated, "Permitting the Investigating Agencies/Prosecuting Agency/Police to directly summon defence counsel or Advocates, who advise parties in a given case, would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice."

On July 21, 2025, the Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed serious concern over the implications such actions may have on the independence of the legal profession.

Cause Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues