Who will Keep the ED under Enforcement? New Summons against Senior Advocate Issued, Now Revoked
The ED had initially summoned Venugopal on June 18, requiring him to furnish all records related to his communication with his clients
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has withdrawn with immediate effect the summons issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal in connection with legal advice he rendered to M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) regarding the grant of Employee StockOwnership Plans (ESOPs) to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Dr. Rashmi Saluja. The move comes amid mounting criticism from the legal...
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has withdrawn with immediate effect the summons issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal in connection with legal advice he rendered to M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) regarding the grant of Employee StockOwnership Plans (ESOPs) to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Dr. Rashmi Saluja. The move comes amid mounting criticism from the legal fraternity over perceived threats to the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege.
The ED had initially summoned Venugopal on June 18, requiring him to furnish all records related to his communication with CHIL and M/s Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) concerning the legal opinion provided for the ESOPs granted to Dr. Saluja, especially after the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) had rejected the grant. The summons also sought details of payments made to Venugopal or his associates for the legal services rendered, and required his appearance before the ED's Assistant Director in Mumbai on June 27 (later advanced to June 24).
This development follows a similar episode involving Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who was earlier issued summons by the ED in relation to the same ESOP matter. The action against Datar triggered widespread condemnation within the legal community, with prominent bar associations—including the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA), the Madras Bar Association, the Delhi High Court Bar Association, and the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association—voicing strong protests. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association even urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai to intervene and frame guidelines to protect the professional independence of advocates.
In a strongly worded letter to the CJI, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the ED’s actions as “an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct lawyer-client privilege” and warned of “a serious threat to the autonomy and fearless functioning of advocates.” The association called for an immediate examination of the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions given in good faith, the safeguarding of constitutional and professional protections for advocates, and the laying down of appropriate guidelines to uphold the independence of the Bar and prevent further erosion of lawyer-client privilege.
SCAORA further emphasized that interference by investigating agencies in matters of legal advice, contrary to established norms, undermines the rule of law and could have a chilling effect, discouraging advocates from providing honest and candid opinions to their clients.
Following the outcry and after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association wrote to the CJI seeking suo motu cognizance of the issue, the ED’s Assistant Director (Mumbai) withdrew the summons issued to Venugopal with immediate effect.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
