Supreme Court Reserves Order in Lawyers’ Summons Case, Calls Itself ‘Custodian’ of Citizens
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday described itself as the “custodian of all citizens” while reserving its verdict in a suo motu case on the summoning of lawyers by probe agencies when they represent clients in ongoing matters.
A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria made the observation while hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that lawyers should be protected as they are part of the administration of justice.
The bench clarified that this protection does not extend to instances where lawyers advise on tampering with evidence or engage in activities beyond their legal duties, in which case immunity would not apply. Mehta maintained that lawyers must never be summoned solely for providing professional opinions.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra stressed the case was fundamentally about ensuring access to justice, citing a recent FIR against a lawyer over a notarised affidavit his client claimed he had not authorised. The bench noted it could not create “two classes” of lawyers. Mehta urged the court to lay down uniform guidelines while considering India’s legal realities.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani said he had reviewed submissions from various bar associations and would file a written note. The bench gave all lawyers a week to submit their notes before closing the matter for orders.
On July 29, the top court held that a lawyer should not be summoned merely for giving legal advice to a client under investigation, but may be if found aiding in a crime. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) had earlier warned that summoning advocates for legal work was a “disturbing trend” undermining the profession, and urged the CJI to take suo motu action.
The case stems from Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. Following criticism, the ED issued a June 20 directive barring summons to advocates in money laundering cases without the agency director’s approval, in line with Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The court had previously expressed concern that the ED was “crossing all limits” and stressed the need for clear guidelines to protect lawyers from undue harassment by investigative agencies.
