Summonses issued to Saluja's lawyers cause unrest among legal fraternity

Not taking kindly to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED's) summons -- later withdrawn -- to two senior advocates Pratap Venugopal and Arvind Datar, legal experts have said though the agency can send such notices, this should be done only in the rarest of the rare cases.
'Normally and ideally unless the ED has concrete clear and irrefutable evidence as to the complicity of the lawyer in the matter of circumvention of any criminal law, a lawyer is a professional and the rules of confidentiality govern the relations with the clients and therefore the lawyer should not ideally be subject to any kind of investigation,' senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose told Business Standard.
'It is the independence of the judiciary which is at stake because if agencies proceed against lawyers, then the lawyers will not be defending their clients,' Ghose said.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on Friday wrote to the chief justice of India, deploring the ED's action and seeking suo motu cognizance of the issuance of the summons to Venugopal. It said the ED's action had ramifications for 'independence of the legal profession' and the 'foundational principle of lawyer-client privilege'.
Earlier this month, the ED had first sent notice to Datar, asking him to appear before the agency in connection with legal advice he had given Care Health Insurance on employee stock options (ESOPs) issued to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja. After protests from lawyers and representations before the Supreme Court, the notice was withdrawn.
On June 18, the agency issued a second summons, this time to Venugopal in connection with the same issue. In its notice, the ED asked Venugopal to furnish records pertaining to communication between him and Care Health Insurance as well as Religare Enterprises. He was also asked to furnish these details on the legal opinion given for the grant of ESOPs to Saluja after the rejection of the grant by the insurance regulator.
The summons also required Venugopal to tender details of payment made by Care Health, Religare Enterprises, and other associate entities against the legal service sought by the companies. He was asked to appear on June 27 before the assistant director of the ED in Mumbai.
'Legal opinion falls under the protection of attorney-client privilege. However, the issue becomes legally complex when legal opinion is allegedly used to facilitate an illegal transaction, such as money laundering or/and when the notice does not directly seek privileged communication, but circumstantial information such as payments received or internal communications,' said Alay Razvi, managing partner of law firm Accord Juris.
Though lawyers can be summoned under procedural laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, it is contentious and opposed by the legal fraternity, Razvi said.
Himanshu Vidhani, partner at law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan, said the ED issuing summons to Datar and Venugopal appeared to be unprecedented.
Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (previously Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act), provides protection of the attorney-client privilege. The Madras High Court had in 2002 deprecated the issuance of a summons to an advocate.
'Allowing investigative agencies to question advocates on advice given to clients would destabilise the foundation and independence of the legal profession, particularly in connection with criminal and white collar defence,' said Divyam Agarwal, partner at law firm JSA Advocates & Solicitors.
Chinmay Bhosale, advocate at Bombay High Court, said: 'In no way can an advocate be considered responsible for his or her client's actions.'
An ED statement said: 'ED has issued a Circular for the guidance of the field formations that no summons shall be issued to any Advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Further if any summons needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to section 132 of the BSA, 2023, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director, ED.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Economic Times

an hour ago

• Economic Times

Sebi's June 2025 board meeting: A regulatory makeover with market empathy

Simplification of Institutional Fund Raising Startup Founders Rejoice Live Events Freedom to Merchant Bankers Welcome to Indian Markets Key Message: (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) in its last board meeting unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory reforms that reflect both market responsiveness and forward-looking policymaking. This meeting wasn't just a quarterly update — it was a full-body reset on many longstanding regulatory frameworks, aimed at easing compliance burdens, deepening market access , and aligning Indian capital markets with global meeting also marked a strategic recalibration of SEBI's regulatory posture. It demonstrated a commitment to reducing compliance friction while safeguarding core market integrity. In doing so, SEBI is responding to the evolving expectations of a maturing market, one that now hosts retail participation at scale, large institutional flows, digitised securities infrastructure, and increased cross-border also gave its green light to a streamlined disclosure regime for Qualified Institutions Placements. The lengthy and often duplicative disclosure requirements will give way to concise, issue-specific and material risk disclosures, leveraging publicly available data. Companies will no longer need to reproduce financials already present in the public domain, making capital-raising quicker and more new-age tech companies decide to go public, they reach a point where they can no longer use the ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan) benefits available to startup promoters. At the same time, the founders are usually classified as 'promoters' in the draft prospectus (DRHP) because of their combined shareholding. Once identified as promoters, and given the rules that apply to listed companies under SEBI's ESOP regulations, they are no longer allowed to receive ESOPs—regardless of whether the company is still considered a has been a long-standing problem, and many industry bodies, including FICCI, have given representation to the regulator to address this concern. Resultantly, SEBI in the floated consultation paper of March 2025 sought to clarify the treatment of Employee Stock Ownership Plans granted to per this recent progressive decision, the startup founders classified as promoters can now continue to hold and/or exercise share-based benefits, such as ESOPs, even after the company lists, provided these benefits were received at least one year prior to filing the previously proposing that merchant bankers separate their non-regulated activities into a different legal entity, SEBI has eased its stand. Merchant bankers can now conduct regulated as well as certain non-regulated, fee-based financial services within the same entity — provided they comply with their respective financial sector regulators' guidelines and SEBI-prescribed conditions. This was in direct response to feedback from key industry bodies like FICCI, which warned of unnecessary cost and a move intended to enhance flexibility for companies considering reverse flipping and improve investor participation, SEBI approved amendments to its ICDR Regulations. Following a consultation paper of March 2025, SEBI relaxed the one-year minimum holding period requirement for equity shares arising from the conversion of fully paid-up compulsorily convertible securities acquired under approved schemes. Investors can now offer these shares in a public issue, harmonising these provisions with the existing minimum promoters' contribution requirements.'Ease of Doing Business is not a dilution — it is a deliberate design. But it must be paired with credible safeguards, professional discipline, and investor-first thinking.'With reforms addressing Alternative Investment Funds, Real Estate and Infrastructure Investment Trusts (REITs/InvITs), Merchant Bankers, Debenture Trustees, and more, SEBI is laying down a unified, consistent, and future-compatible regulatory said, there is scope to do more. The regulator could further simplify the capital-market instruments — for example, by allowing a fast-track conversion process for Private InvITs to list as Public InvITs. Steps like these will make the Indian capital markets even more accessible, liquid, and investor-friendly.

News18

3 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

The Print

6 hours ago

• The Print

ED takes lesson from Datar & Venugopal episodes, director's nod now must to summon advocates

The move followed strong condemnation by several associations of lawyers of the ED summons issued to two senior advocates in connection with a money-laundering probe. New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) Friday issued a circular to its officers instructing them not to summon any advocate as part of the investigation, as it could amount to a violation of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). The ED circular, a copy of which has been seen by ThePrint, further said that, in exceptional circumstances, when summons have to be issued, it can only be done after the approval of the agency director. From Section 132, 'it is amply clear that a legal practitioner cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his professional service as such legal practitioner, by or on behalf of his client unless with his client's express consent. However, proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, 2023 has carved out certain exceptions,' said the circular issued by ED's legal wing to field officers. 'In view of the above, it is directed that no summons shall be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132. Further, if any summon needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, the same shall be issued with the prior approval of the Director, ED,' it added. The development comes at a time when the ED has drawn criticism from the legal community over summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in its probe into dealings of Care Health Insurance (CHIL) and its parent company, Religare Enterprises (REL). Both summonses have been withdrawn. In a letter dated 16 June, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association expressed 'strong disapproval' of the summons to Datar and said it reflected 'a disturbing trend of investigative overreach'. ThePrint had earlier reported that the ED has been probing money laundering allegations against these firms, including the transfer of shares worth crores to former CHIL non-executive chairperson and REL executive chairperson Rashmi Saluja despite the request being rejected by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). The former board of CHIL cited an opinion that it had sought from Datar to grant shares to Saluja. According to the ED, Datar said IRDAI's approval was not needed since the shares were being granted in her capacity as an REL employee, and not CHIL. Separately, Venugopal was summoned in his capacity as the former independent director of CHIL to understand the circumstances behind the share transfer, the ED spokesperson said. In a statement Friday, the ED spokesperson said, 'In view of the fact that Shri Pratap Venugopal is a Senior Advocate in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the summons issued to him has been withdrawn and same has been communicated to him. 'In the said communication, it has also been stated that if any documents will be required from him in his capacity as an Independent Director of CHIL, the same will be requested from him to be submitted by email.' (Edited by Sanya Mathur) Also Read: ED's now-withdrawn summons to Arvind Datar: The case, controversy & SC advocates body letter