Advocates body seeks CJI intervention after ED issues summons to senior lawyers
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on Friday raised concerns over the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning yet another senior legal professional — this time, senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, and urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take immediate suo motu cognisance of what the body described as a serious infringement on the independence of the legal profession and lawyer-client confidentiality.
Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar that supported the allotment of the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. While ED had earlier this month summoned Datar as well, that notice was subsequently withdrawn after protests from the legal fraternity.
In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair termed the ED's action 'a deeply disquieting development,' cautioning that such coercive measures strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law.
Venugopal, who was designated as a senior advocate earlier this year, received an ED summons on June 19 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The summons relates to the ongoing investigation into the ESOP matter.
In its letter, SCAORA asserted that such actions amount to an 'impermissible transgression' of the sacrosanct principle of lawyer-client privilege. It warned that if left unchecked, this trend could have a chilling effect on the entire legal community, discouraging lawyers from rendering candid legal advice and undermining the independence of the Bar.
'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated.
SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to intervene and examine the legality and propriety of issuing summonses to advocates for professional opinions, besides framing guidelines to prevent future incursions into lawyer-client confidentiality.
This is the second time in recent days that the Association has raised its voice against such summonses. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar, terming it 'unwarranted' and indicative of a growing trend of investigative overreach.
On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association also passed a resolution strongly criticising the ED's move, calling it a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial.
The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association too convened an emergency meeting the same day, with its president Brijesh Trivedi denouncing the ED's actions as violative of legal independence. The body demanded immediate government action to protect attorney-client privilege through statutory amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
ED withdraws summons to senior advocate amid row
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, hours after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the agency's move, calling it a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance. (HT photo) Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to appear before the ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on Friday afternoon informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar in the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as well, but that notice too was rescinded following backlash from the legal fraternity. In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as 'a deeply disquieting development,' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an 'impermissible transgression' into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated. SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and called for the framing of clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future. This is the second time in recent days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar as 'unwarranted' and a manifestation of growing investigative overreach. Similar concerns have echoed across the legal landscape. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution criticising the ED's actions, warning of a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also convened an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent government action to protect lawyer-client privilege through amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. While ED has not formally disclosed reasons for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the move as an implicit recognition of the serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
PMLA probe complete, asked banks to unfreeze accounts of bootlegger's brother: Gujarat Police tells HC
Nearly three years after the State Monitoring Cell (SMC) of the Gujarat police directed two banks to freeze accounts of a Vadodara-based businessman to investigate a proposed case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, against his brother, a wanted alleged bootlegger, the cell informed the Gujarat High Court that it has requested the banks to 'unfreeze' the accounts as the investigation was complete. On Thursday, Justice HD Suthar of the Gujarat HC disposed of the petition filed by Rajesh Udhwani, a resident of Vadodara's Warasiya area and the brother of Vijay Udhwani, who had moved a Special Criminal Application through his advocate Rahul Sharma against the state of Gujarat, Director General and Inspector General of Police, SMC, and Vadodara city branches of two banks — Bank of Baroda and HDFC Bank – after his accounts were frozen in July 2022 at the directions of the SMC. On Thursday, as the petition came up for hearing, the government public prosecutor informed the court that the SMC, had, through a communication to the banks in April, directed that the two accounts held by Rajesh Udhwani be 'unfreezed' as the 'investigation was done'. The court, in an oral order, disposed of the petition and said, 'In view of the communication dated 29.04.2025 prepared by the Police Sub-Inspector, State Monitoring Cell, Gujarat State, the application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.' In his petition before the HC, the petitioner stated that he runs a liquor business in Rajasthan and a retail cloth store in Vadodara city. He challenged the seizure of his two bank accounts with the HDFC and the Bank of Baroda, which was effected by both banks in July 2022, on the directions of the SMC. The petition stated that Rajesh Udhwani 'has no criminal antecedent and is not involved in any criminal activity'. The petitioner had stated that he 'has reasons to believe that his bank accounts were seized because several offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, have been registered against his brother.' Rajesh Udhawani's advocate Rahul Sharma told The Indian Express, 'The petition contended that seizure of bank accounts of any person, without there being any connection with any crime, is not permissible under law. There is also no reason for the police to suspect the commission of any crime. Therefore, the prayer was that the order of the SMC to seize the accounts of the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to operate his bank account without any hindrance… The SMC had frozen the accounts without following the process of law.' In a letter sent to the manager of the banks in April, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, SMC, directed that the accounts be 'unfreezed'. The letter, which is now part of the annexures presented before the HC by the petitioner, and signed by Police Sub-inspector of SMC, said, 'An offence has been registered (in 2021)… for the purpose of PMLA (money laundering) proposal of the accused and to further investigate the case, the Investigating Officer JH Dahiya, Police Inspector SMC Gandhinagar, with cited reference letter, has examined account details of the accounts connected and familiar with the main accused… and after that the IO had requested your bank to freeze and mark this account as 'No Debit' till further instructions from his office… Investigation of the account has been done… so you are requested to unfreeze the account.' The petitioner's brother, Vijay Udhwani alias Viju Sindhi, is an alleged bootlegger who has multiple cases against him across the state as well as a red corner notice. Vijay has been on the run since his name cropped up in the murder of gangster Mukesh Harjani in Vadodara in 2016. In February, the SMC had booked Vijay under the GUCTOC Act along with his gang members in hundreds of collective cases. Vijay has challenged the FIR in the Gujarat HC.
News18
13 hours ago
- News18
ED Busts Multinational Terror Funding Network Linked To PFI & SDPI
Last Updated: The operation ran a shadow economy that facilitated the movement of over Rs 62 crore to finance illegal activities, including terror training and mobilising citizens against India The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has uncovered a massive criminal network orchestrated by the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political arm, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), following a lengthy investigation that exposed their involvement in financing terrorist training, communal unrest, and radicalisation activities across India. According to sources within the ED, the criminal operation ran a shadow economy that facilitated the movement of over Rs 62 crore in illicit funds, which were funnelled through a web of fraudulent financial practices, fake trusts, underground Hawala networks, and a dedicated chain of operatives. The network, with both domestic and international connections, was strategically built to finance illegal activities, including terror training, communal violence, and mobilising citizens against the Indian state. MK Faizy: The Mastermind Behind the Operation At the heart of this extensive conspiracy lies MK Faizy, the National President of SDPI and a member of the National Executive Council (NEC) of PFI. According to the ED investigation, Faizy was the mastermind behind the financial operations of SDPI, playing a pivotal role in orchestrating PFI's underground economy. His position allowed him to mobilise funds both domestically and internationally, especially from Gulf nations such as Qatar and UAE, where a significant portion of the illicit funds originated. Faizy personally oversaw the fundraising efforts, which included cash donations, cadre fees, and money laundering through SDPI's organisational bank accounts. ED sources revealed that Faizy personally handled Rs 15.4 lakh in illicit funds through HDFC Bank, disguising it as legitimate political income. These funds were then redirected to support violent riots, murder plots, and radical training camps, including several notorious terror-linked operations. Faizy's central role within SDPI and his direct involvement in terror financing has led the ED to label him as the primary architect of a sophisticated, transnational terror financing network. Faizy's operations were further bolstered by his close associate Wahidur Rahman, who managed field operations and controlled the actual cash channels used to funnel funds through party sympathisers. Rahman coordinated with various operatives to move illicit money, ensuring its effective use in SDPI's physical operations, including acts of violence and destabilising protests. Rauf Sherif, a crucial player in the network, headed the Campus Front of India (CFI), which is linked to PFI's student front. Sherif played a significant role in channelling funds from abroad through Shafeeque Payeth, a key operator based in Doha. Payeth's operations in the Gulf were integral to the transfer of cash from overseas donors into SDPI's hands. In addition, Ashraf MK and Abdul Razak were pivotal in converting illicit funds into real estate and property, further laundering the money into legitimate assets. The SDPI state units across various regions were also involved in hoarding and laundering the money, acting as crucial storage points for the criminal funds. The investigation also revealed Rasheed and Kunju, two operatives linked to SDPI, who were directly involved in physical crimes funded by SDPI. These individuals were integral to the violent operations on the ground, executing plans for communal violence, and engaging in illegal acts designed to fuel unrest and radicalisation across Indian states. Well-Organised Transnational Conspiracy The case has unravelled a carefully coordinated and expansive network of radicalisation and terror financing, which operated not only through domestic channels but also extended across borders. The SDPI-PFI nexus, through its transnational network, sought to utilise political and civil liberties infrastructure to further their ideological war against the Indian state. They exploited legal avenues, including using their political party status and social activism fronts, to mask their true intentions—funding terrorism and radicalisation efforts. The network used underground hawala networks, illegal cash donations, and fraudulent financial practices to raise money from sympathisers abroad, while simultaneously using the SDPI's political influence to create public disturbances, thereby feeding into their larger goal of sowing discord and instability within the nation. Following the unearthing of this network, the Enforcement Directorate has initiated a series of actions, including freezing accounts, seizing properties linked to illicit transactions, and interrogating key members of PFI and SDPI. The investigation is ongoing, with the ED planning to expand the probe into the wider network of international financiers and operatives involved. Sources close to ED have stated that further arrests and more seizures are expected as the investigation deepens, and international cooperation may be sought to bring to justice those operating from foreign territories, particularly the Gulf countries, which have emerged as key nodes in the funding network. About the Author Manoj Gupta Group Editor, Investigations & Security Affairs, Network18 Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 21, 2025, 12:06 IST
