New Delhi, India — The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has withdrawn a summons directed at senior advocate Pratap Venugopal after a significant outcry regarding the agency’s actions. The move followed a letter from the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, urging attention to what they deemed coercive measures against legal professionals.
Venugopal received notification from the ED on June 20, indicating that the summons was no longer in effect. This summons pertained to an ongoing investigation into an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) linked to Care Health Insurance and its former chairperson, Rashmi Saluja. The agency’s inquiry revolved around a legal opinion that Venugopal had acted upon, which supported the issuance of stock options.
Prior to this development, the ED had also summoned senior advocate Arvind Datar, who authored the legal opinion, although that notice was subsequently retracted. The ED’s initial actions surrounding Venugopal raised alarm among legal circles, prompting SCAORA president Vipin Nair to label the situation as “deeply disquieting” in their correspondence with the Chief Justice. Nair expressed concerns that such actions threaten vital aspects of lawyer-client confidentiality and undermine the independence of the legal profession.
SCAORA’s letter pointed out that Venugopal received the ED summons, dated June 18, under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The continuation of the investigation into the Care Health Insurance ESOP prompted worries about how such summonses are issued to legal practitioners based on their professional responsibilities, potentially infringing upon the principle of lawyer-client privilege.
The SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to scrutinize the legality of summonses served on lawyers, emphasizing that the ED’s tactics could have chilling repercussions for the legal community as a whole. In their response on June 20, the ED acknowledged Venugopal’s high standing as a senior advocate and confirmed the withdrawal of the summons. The agency also mentioned that any future requests for documents would come directly by email, should they be necessary for investigations.
Additionally, the ED has implemented a new circular intending to guide its field operations. This circular specifies that no summons will be issued to advocates that violate Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Should exceptions arise necessitating the issuance of summons under the act, the ED has stipulated that such actions must first receive approval from the agency’s Director.
This controversy illustrates the tension between enforcement actions and the legal profession’s autonomy and could set a precedent for how similar cases are approached in the future.
The article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.