In a significant reversal, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has withdrawn, with immediate effect, its summons issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal in connection with legal advice rendered to a client. The move comes amid growing concerns over potential infringement of lawyer-client privilege and the independence of the legal profession.
The summons, dated June 18, had called upon Venugopal to appear before the ED on June 24 regarding legal counsel he had provided to M/s Care Health Insurance. The matter pertained to Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) benefits extended to Dr. Rashmi Saluja, former Chairperson of Religare Enterprises. The agency’s action sparked immediate criticism from legal circles.
Earlier, a similar summons had been served to another eminent legal figure, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, in the same matter. That summons too was later rescinded without further action.
Reacting sharply to the latest development, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) addressed a letter to Chief Justice of India, urging the apex court to take suo motu cognizance of the issue. The association condemned the ED’s move, calling it a serious threat to the independence of the legal profession and a potential violation of the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality.
In its letter, SCAORA requested the Supreme Court to:
(i) assess the legality and propriety of issuing such summons to legal professionals for opinions given in good faith, and
(ii) frame comprehensive guidelines to safeguard the fundamental principle of lawyer-client privilege and uphold the independence of the Bar.
Shortly thereafter, the ED’s Assistant Director (Mumbai) formally retracted the summons issued to Venugopal.
The withdrawal is being viewed as a partial vindication for the legal community, though concerns linger over the implications of investigative agencies summoning advocates for professional opinions rendered in a fiduciary capacity.
