The Supreme Court of India recently heard a suo motu case titled "In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues", following recent instances of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issuing summons to two senior lawyers merely for providing legal advice.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard submissions from senior members of the Bar and has now posted the matter for further hearing on August 12, directing the Union Government to submit its response.

The suo motu proceedings stem from serious concerns expressed by the division bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh over the summoning of advocates by investigating agencies, which the Court said could threaten the independence of the legal profession and the fair administration of justice. The suo motu case was registered on July 4 after the Gujarat Police summoned an advocate representing an accused.

The issue gained national attention after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for legal advice they had rendered. The move was widely condemned by legal associations and practitioners across the country, prompting the ED to withdraw the summons and issue a circular mandating prior approval of the ED Director for any future summons to lawyers.

Senior lawyers put their contentions before the court regarding the matter.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association, warned of a “chilling effect” if lawyers are routinely summoned for legal opinions. “We don't want the profession to suffer, if this is done routinely, no lawyer will think of advising someone in a sensitive criminal case,” he cautioned, proposing that a summons to an advocate should only be issued after approval by a Magistrate and a senior officer of Superintendent of Police rank.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed that "a lawyer cannot be summoned merely for giving an advice to a client” and emphasized the protections under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, he urged the Court not to frame rules based on “a stray incident.”

Mehta also raised constitutional concerns over proposals for Magistrate approval before issuing summons, arguing that such safeguards for lawyers alone could violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

He maintained that while lawyers deserve protection, they cannot claim blanket immunity. He mentioned one incident, where a fugitive told the authorities that his documents were in the law firm's office, which could be collected. Assistance to the client must be within the four corners of the law, he cautioned.

Chief Justice Gavai responded that it was not just one incident but two, where two senior lawyers were issued summons.

SG Mehta responded by pointing out that the summons were promptly withdrawn following executive intervention within six hours.

CJI Gavai clarified during the hearing that the Court's concern was limited to the question of whether advocates should be summoned solely for giving legal advice.

“We have said in beginning itself that if somebody is assisting the client in the crime, then he be summoned but not merely for giving legal advice." stated the CJI.

The case is now scheduled for continued hearing on 12th August, 2025, where the Centre is expected to file a comprehensive response to the concerns raised.

Case Details: IN RE : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues, SMW (Crl.) 2/2025