“A Direct Threat To Justice”
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 25th June, The Supreme Court took suo motu notice after a lawyer was summoned by Gujarat Police over his client’s case. It said such actions are a “direct threat to the administration of justice” and harm legal independence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that investigating agencies should not be permitted to directly summon lawyers in connection with their clients’ cases, as this poses a direct threat to the administration of justice.
A Bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh took suo motu cognizance of the issue while addressing a plea from a lawyer who had been summoned by police in Gujarat regarding a case involving his client.
Also Read: Lawyers “Browbeating” Angers Gujarat High Court Judge
The Court stated,
“Permitting the investigation agencies/police to directly summon defence counsels or lawyers who advised 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,”
It added that such actions are prima facie untenable.
The Court indicated that it would require the input of the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).
The Court framed two key questions for consideration:
- If the agency has grounds to argue that the individual’s role goes beyond that of a lawyer, should they still be directly summoned, or should there be a requirement for judicial oversight in such exceptional cases?
- Should the investigating agency/prosecution/police directly summon a lawyer when that individual is involved in a case solely as an advisor?
The Court emphasized that these issues must be addressed comprehensively, as the efficacy of the administration of justice is at stake.
The Court ordered that it be presented to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
In a related development, the Court granted interim relief to the lawyer who had been summoned by the police in Gujarat.
The Court directed,
“There shall be a stay on the High Court order and a stay on the operation of summons and any other notices issued to the petitioner.”
Also Read: Action Against Lawyer for Inappropriate Attire: Bombay HC Directs Bar Council
This comes in the wake of a recent controversy involving the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal concerning an investigation related to the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) provided by Care Health Insurance (CHIL) to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
Following strong resolutions from Bar associations across India, both summons were withdrawn. The ED then issued a circular advising its officials against issuing summons to advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Case Title: ASHWINKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9334/2025
