HC notice to ED on Chhavi writ petition
Ranchi: The Jharkhand high court today issued notice to the
Enforcement Directorate
in a criminal writ petition filed by former Ranchi deputy commissioner Chhavi Ranjan.
Ranjan has moved the high court challenging the cognizance taken against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for his involvement in the illegal sale of army land in Bargain in Bariatu in the capital.
Ranjan is in custody since May 2023. Ranjan has alleged that the trial in his case has commenced without obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the government.
The case in the high court will be heard again on July 18.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC lawyers' body asks ED to respect independence of Bar, exercise restraint
Representative Image Sections 132 and 134 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, protect lawyer-client communications from disclosure. The Enforcement Directorate message to Venugopal read, "Please refer to the trail mail in this regard. The summons for June 24 issued to you hereby stands withdrawn with immediate effect." By afternoon, the SC Bar Association's executive body, led by senior advocate Vikas Singh, condemned the ED summons to Datar and Venugopal. "Issuance of such illegal notices and summons to senior advocates and to the advocate-on-record reflect a disturbing trend, striking at the very foundations of the legal profession and undermining the independence of the bar, which is a core pillar of Indian democracy," it said, calling upon ED to respect independence of bar and exercise restraint. SCAORA requested the CJI to "examine the legality and propriety of such summons issued to legal professionals for opinions rendered in good faith; safeguard the constitutional and professional protections accorded to advocates; and lay down guidelines to prevent further erosion of professional protection to lawyer-client communications and uphold independence of bar". SCAORA said the unwarranted steps taken by ED against senior advocates for discharge of their professional duty set a "dangerous precedent" that could have a chilling effect on the entire legal fraternity and dissuade them from giving honest and independent legal opinions to clients. Bar Association of India, too, criticised ED and said, "Issuance of summons is also an egregious example of overreach by the agency and is an attempt to undermine attorney-client privilege protected under the provisions of BSA."
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED retreats after uproar, withdraws summons to top advocates
Under fire from the legal fraternity over its summons to Senior Advocates Pratap Venugopal and Arvind Datar in connection with a case in which they had rendered legal advice, the Enforcement Directorate said Friday it had instructed field formations not to issue summons to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — the section deals with the confidentiality of communications between an advocate and client. Any exception necessitating the issue of summons 'shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director, ED', the probe agency said in a statement to the press. The ED's summons to Datar and Venugopal had drawn not just criticism but also raised questions on whether such summons can dilute attorney-client privilege. The lawyers were summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a case of alleged money laundering. It is learnt that Datar wrote to the agency, expressing his inability to respond to the summons, citing attorney-client privilege. Sources in the ED told The Indian Express that the summons to Datar had 'expired' and no fresh summons had been issued. Venugopal received a communication from the ED, clarifying that the summons for June 24 had been 'withdrawn'. Non-compliance of summons by the ED is an offence under the PMLA. However, lawyers are protected under evidentiary laws from being compelled to issue statements or testify against their clients. Advocate Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, wrote to Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, urging him to take suo motu action against the ED. 'These actions, by the ED, we believe, amount to an impermissible transgression of the sacrosanct lawyer-client privilege, and pose a serious threat to the autonomy and fearless functioning of advocates. Such unwarranted and coercive measures against senior members of the Bar for discharge of professional duties set a dangerous precedent, potentially resulting in a chilling effect across the legal community,' Nair wrote. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) too condemned the ED summons to Venugopal and Datar, saying the actions 'reflect a disturbing trend, striking at the very foundations of the legal profession and undermining the independence of the Bar' and also reflect 'an illegal, perverse and intimidatory use of state power'. A statement issued by Advocate Pragya Baghel said 'the Executive Committee of… SCBA unanimously resolved and expresses its deep anguish, concern and unequivocal condemnation of the action taken by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in summoning and issuance of Notice to Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Senior Advocate and member of SCBA, for the services rendered in discharge of professional duty.' On Friday, in its statement to the press, the ED said, 'The Mumbai Branch of ED is conducting a money-laundering investigation in which it has been alleged that shares of M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) were issued at a much lower price in the form of ESOPs on 1st May, 2022, in spite of the rejection of the same by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).' 'As part of investigation, a summons was issued to Shri Pratap Venugopal, an Independent Director of CHIL, to understand the circumstances under which the company has issued the ESOPs despite its rejection by IRDAI and subsequent discussions in the Board of CHIL in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that IRDAI on 23.07.2024 had directed the CHIL to revoke or cancel any ESOPs that have yet to be allotted and has also imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore on CHIL for non-compliance with regulatory directions,' the ED 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,' it said. 'Further, the ED has also 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,' the agency said. — With ENS inputs Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
HC notice to ED on Chhavi writ petition
Ranchi: The Jharkhand high court today issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate in a criminal writ petition filed by former Ranchi deputy commissioner Chhavi Ranjan. Ranjan has moved the high court challenging the cognizance taken against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for his involvement in the illegal sale of army land in Bargain in Bariatu in the capital. Ranjan is in custody since May 2023. Ranjan has alleged that the trial in his case has commenced without obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the government. The case in the high court will be heard again on July 18.
