The Supreme Court of India has voiced strong concerns regarding probe agencies and police directly summoning advocates, emphasizing that this practice undermines the autonomy of the legal profession and poses a significant threat to the independence of justice administration. The apex court has initiated suo motu proceedings to address the issue and formulate safeguards to protect the legal profession.
The observations were made during the hearing of an appeal by a Gujarat-based advocate who was summoned by the police merely for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh stayed the notice against the lawyer and directed the state to refrain from summoning him further. The court framed two core questions for fuller consideration: whether police should ever summon a lawyer advising a party without judicial oversight, and if so, under what exceptional circumstances.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Lawyers engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed due to their professional status and statutory provisions. Permitting investigating agencies or police to directly summon defense 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.
The court noted that advocates have statutory protection to perform their job without fear, as they act as officers of the court. Summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence, and such practices, if allowed to persist, would have a chilling effect on legal professionals and impair the justice delivery system. Lawyers must be able to advise and represent clients without fear of being summoned or harassed, the court added.
The issue gained urgency after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently withdrew summonses to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in a money-laundering probe, pending approval from the agency's director. The ED also issued a circular directing all its field offices not to issue summons to advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It mandated that in exceptional cases where the proviso to Section 132 may apply, prior approval from the ED director would be necessary before issuing such summons.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) condemned prior ED notices as a disturbing trend that strikes at the foundations of the legal profession and urged the Chief Justice to take suo motu cognizance of the matter.
The court has sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association president Vipin Nair, and Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Vikas Singh in the matter. The bench has referred the issue to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai for directions.
