Latest news with #SCBA
Indian Express
17 hours ago
- Politics
- 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 Venugopal received a communication from the ED, clarifying that the summons for June 24 had been 'withdrawn'.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
Hamilton Spectator
05-06-2025
- General
- Hamilton Spectator
Kootenay Ignite Mentorship Society hosts camp to empower young female firefighters
The registration deadline for a high school girls' firefighting camp in Creston has been extended to June 15. The Kootenay Ignite Mentorship Society's annual camp, running July 11 to 13, empowers young women to explore the profession of firefighting in a unique team environment. Participants are mentored through a wide variety of firefighting and rescue skill stations by all women firefighters. 'KIMS [Kootenay Ignite Mentorship Society] was established to bring out unique opportunities for young women to find their passion, to challenge themselves, to inspire, and to be inspired,' Julie Winter, director on the KIMS board and lieutenant at Passmore Fire Department, told the Valley Voice. 'We will continue to bring together powerful females who are already embedded in the career to encourage and mentor these young campers, who come eager and ready to learn.' Winter has served as a mentor and instructor for two years. Women make up only 4% of career firefighters, and she hopes the camp will encourage girls to join the service. 'When I first joined, I was one of two women on the Sparwood Fire Department,' said Winter. 'The guys were wonderful, but it's nice to have the camaraderie of other women.' Participants are split into groups, each with a mentor to guide them to stations and help with gear. Most have not been exposed to firefighting, said Winter, so mentors ensure each participant is dressed properly. Both the mentors and instructors share their valuable experiences as women firefighters, and support the girls to challenge themselves and learn new skills. 'The instructors get as much out of it as the girls do,' said Winter. 'Plus: building those strong female relationships is awesome, too.' KIMS began as Camp Ignite – Kootenay Division in 2023, started by Creston's assistant fire chief Laura Dodman, who was inspired by Camp Ignite Vancouver. After two successful years, it evolved into KIMS and became a non-profit society. Ten girls attended in 2023, and 12 in 2024. Winter said they are hoping for 18 this year, but can accommodate more if the interest is there. Food and accommodation are provided. 'I can attest to what a remarkable weekend it is,' she said. 'We had a girl that became emotional putting on the SCBA [self-contained breathing apparatus]. But by Sunday, I was running the live fire simulator and she was wearing the SCBA, crawling around in a smoky environment, trying to find the seed of the fire. She cried tears of happiness because she was so proud of herself for overcoming her fear.' KIMS fundraises every year for camp costs. Passmore Social Club kindly sponsored a camper, and three bursaries are given out at the end of the weekend, thanks to Coast Ropes, Associated Fire Safety Group, and Brogan Safety. To sign-up, make a donation, or get more information, visit , or email kootenayignite@ . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hindustan Times
04-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
SCAORA acting beyond its mandate: SCBA president to CJI
New Delhi, The Supreme Court Bar Association president on Wednesday wrote to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai accusing the top court's advocates on record association of "overstepping" its mandate. The SCBA claimed that the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association had issued communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure and bar members of the top court. In his letter to the CJI, Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh said he wanted to ensure that the functioning of this institution remained "cohesive, disciplined, and free from unnecessary overlaps" or conflicts-particularly in matters concerning the general interests of the bar or Supreme Court infrastructure. He underlined the need to promote a unified voice within the bar while ensuring "seamless collaboration" and respect for institutional integrity and maintaining harmony between the bar and the bench. "Surprisingly, in the recent times, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association , while acting beyond its mandate, has been issuing communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure, facilities and issues concerning general Bar members of the Supreme Court. These subjects strictly fall within the exclusive domain of SCBA, which represents the collective interests of all categories of lawyers practising in the Supreme Court," Singh's letter said. He continued, "SCBA today comprises 22,734 members, which include 10,013 permanent members and 12,309 temporary members. There are 401 pending membership requests at present. These 22,734 members include 906 senior advocates, AoRs, and about 19,000 non-AoR practitioners." Notably, Singh said, there were 3,786 AoRs registered with the Supreme Court as of now and 3,000 of them were members of the SCAORA. "In that view of the matter, SCAORA does not even represent all AoRs registered in Supreme Court." Referring to a recent issue raised by the SCAORA to the secretary general, Supreme Court on biometric entry for lawyers, Singh said there was absolutely no question of members of the bar voluntarily offering such extensive personal information to the registry of the Supreme Court. "If on the other hand, there is any mandate from the Supreme Court, for security reasons, upon discussion with the SCBA, the Bar would, of course, fully cooperate," the letter said. Singh said sharing such biometric data by lawyers could be counter effective, considering the increased instances of breach of data privacy. He said SCAORA's scope should be limited to issues "concerning AoR practice" such as matters related to filing procedures, registry protocols, and AoR- specific concerns. The letter claimed that the SCBA, and not the SCAORA, was the only recognised court-annexed bar association that represented the members regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
New Indian Express
30-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
The Bar is too high but never above the law: A response to Ashish Khetan
Ashish Khetan's recent critique of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for accepting a Rs 50 crore donation from industrialists raises legitimate concerns about the integrity and independence of legal institutions. However, his argument, though well-intentioned, is based on a misunderstanding of the structure, functioning, and ethos of the Bar Association, and ultimately conflates institutional assistance with institutional compromise. To begin with, it is essential to distinguish between the SCBA and the Supreme Court itself. The SCBA is not a judicial body. It is a professional association comprising advocates who practice before the Supreme Court. Its functions include promoting legal education, providing welfare benefits to its members, and upholding professional standards. It is neither a regulatory body like the Bar Council nor a judicial body like the Supreme Court. Consequently, the decisions it takes to support its members, such as facilitating insurance through donations, do not impact the independence or impartiality of the judiciary. Khetan's central concern is that by accepting donations from wealthy industrialists—'crumbs off the plate of the filthy rich'—the Bar Association may lose its moral footing or be beholden to such donors. This assumption oversimplifies the realities of funding in professional associations and civil society more broadly. Donations are a common and necessary practice to enable institutions—be they bar associations, universities, hospitals, or NGOs—to meet their objectives. Philanthropy, including corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, is an accepted and encouraged practice under Indian law. Indeed, many industrial contributions to social causes are not only legally sanctioned but statutorily mandated. To equate such support with loss of independence is both speculative and unfair. SCBA office bearers, including Kapil Sibal, have been transparent about the nature of the donations. Sibal's candid acknowledgment that the donors are his personal friends, whom he has represented in court, does not suggest impropriety—it is merely an honest recognition of professional networks. Legal professionals often represent clients across a spectrum, including the government, corporations, NGOs, and individuals. The relationships formed therein do not, and should not, cast a shadow on their integrity or ability to act independently. Moreover, the independence of the Bar is not a function of its sources of funding. It is a function of the conduct, character, and courage of its members. The SCBA comprises advocates from diverse backgrounds and persuasions, who have time and again demonstrated their willingness to critique governments, stand against executive overreach, and speak out against judicial failings. The presence of a donation does not dilute this spirit. If anything, it enables the Association to better serve its members—especially younger lawyers who benefit from health insurance and welfare measures funded through such generosity. It is important to stress that the SCBA is not a homogeneous or hierarchical body. It cannot be held collectively accountable for the personal ideologies of its individual members, just as a university cannot be judged solely on the views of its alumni. The SCBA has, in the past, vocally defended the independence of the judiciary, condemned assaults on legal norms, and mobilized collective opinion on matters of national importance. Its institutional memory and commitment to democratic values remain intact. Khetan's article also suggests that donations from business houses create a perception of quid pro quo. But perceptions must be grounded in fact. If there is evidence of favouritism or compromise, it must be brought to light and acted upon. Until then, insinuations serve only to tarnish without substantiating. In a legal system where integrity is paramount, such allegations require caution, especially when aimed at a collective. The Courts and judges are well trained to ensure that these externalities do not affect their decision. There is also a glaring contradiction in Khetan's stance: would the same critique apply if the donation had come from the government, which remains the largest litigant in the country? Would accepting government grants then imply that the Bar is compromised in its independence from state control? The logic of his critique, if consistently applied, would prohibit all forms of external funding—an unsustainable proposition. As a constitutional lawyer and member of the SCBA, I can say with conviction for myself and almost for the whole bar that we are not beholden to any donor or industrialist, whether or not they have contributed to the SCBA. Our professional obligations, ethical commitments, and pledge to uphold the Constitution are not so fragile as to be swayed by financial patronage of this kind. The judiciary's challenges today lie elsewhere. They lie in the chronic shortage of judges, the staggering backlog of cases, and the lack of administrative reform. The disillusionment of the common litigant stems from the unaccountability of the executive, the inertia of the police machinery, and the government's delays in implementing court orders. To attribute these systemic issues to a donation received by a professional association is to misdirect public ire and distract from the real problems. Khetan's article, at best, serves as a cautionary note—a reminder that institutions must remain vigilant. On that, we agree. Transparency in accepting and disclosing donations is imperative. Bar associations must remain accountable to their members and to the public. But to suggest that they have already failed this test without evidence is premature and unfair. The Supreme Court Bar Association and its members have a serious culture of pro bono matters. I can name at least half a dozen senior advocates whom I have instructed to appear in cases concerning bails, bulldozer action, students' expulsion, custodial violence, demolition and riots. This includes even the most senior lawyer like Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sanjay Hegde and Dr Guruswamy. There is disparity in remuneration amongst legal professionals. This is also because of the unwillingness of the client to remunerate the junior members. The problem of distribution of wealth in India is a problem that is not confined to the legal professional alone. There are systemic changes that must be brought about - and the process of designation of 'senior advocates' being one of them. However, to conflate these with donations is pushing the limits of logic. The examples of conflict of interest, as mentioned by Khetan are simplistic and do not capture the nuances of professional ethics. A lawyer is engaged by a client, and just as a client may choose to not engage the same advocate for his next matter, a lawyer may also (subject to cab-rank rules) choose to decline the brief. The bar against appearing against a previous client is only when the appearance is marred by legal professional privilege or a relationship with the client. Khetan has mentioned too many subjects in one piece, like in quick-stand, fully reasoned none. Finally, the role of bar associations in a democracy must be appreciated in its full complexity. These bodies nurture the legal fraternity, facilitate professional development, and serve as intermediaries between the bar and the bench. Their vibrancy and financial stability are essential for the health of the legal system. In supporting such institutions through lawful, transparent donations, benefactors are not undermining democracy—they are strengthening one of its pillars. The Bar is never above the law. (The author is Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India and Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association)
Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Adani to Ambani: Sibal gets India Inc to pay Rs 50 cr for lawyers' health cover
SENIOR ADVOCATE Kapil Sibal, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has raised Rs 50 crore from a few big industrialists to fund a group medical insurance policy for the Bar's members, has met with opposition from a section within the association. 'As the new SCBA president, my first endeavour will be to discuss this policy in the Executive Committee meeting… My personal view is that this policy definitely needs to be renegotiated or scrapped, because the premium that we are paying for a Rs 2 lakh cover is highly disproportionate to the premium that we pay for a Rs 5 lakh cover,' Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who was elected the new president of the Bar body last week, told The Indian Express. At a General Body Meeting of the SCBA on May 5, Singh had expressed his opposition. To a question on whether Sibal's endeavour raised issues of conflict of interest, Singh said it depends on whether these are CSR funds. 'There is no conflict if its not CSR funds as the money is given to the association and not to any individual,' he said. When contacted, Sibal said, 'There is no conflict of interest here. Where is the question? The donation is to the association and not to any member. Moreover, personally, I have and may appear again against or in favour of many of these companies. And I charge them. Our professional career is not based on our friendships.' Sibal said Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries) contributed Rs 10 crore, while Anil Ambani (Reliance Group), Gautam Adani (Adani Group), N Chandrasekharan (Tata Sons), Samir Mehta (Torrent Group), G M Rao (GMR Group), Kumar Mangalam Birla (Aditya Birla Group), Anil Aggarwal (Vedanta) and Lakshmi Mittal (ArcelorMittal) gave Rs 5 crore each. He said corporates would get tax exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Donations made to specified institutions are allowed to be deducted from the taxable income under Section 80G. SCBA's new President Singh said his attempt would be (to ensure) that this policy was made available only to needy members of the Bar or members who support elderly parents. 'It should not be made available for people like us. The policy, as announced by the earlier Executive Committee, is meant for everybody, including me, Mr Sibal etc. This kind of money can never be utilised for that…All this will be done only after discussing with my Executive Committee.' According to Sibal, 95 per cent of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court do not earn well. 'They come from all over the country to Delhi…to practise…most of them are not earning well… they have to spend money on rent, their families… and if they fall ill, have to foot medical bills.' He said there are about 2,700-2,800 members of the SCBA who have voting rights, and will be eligible for the health cover. Addressing an event organised by the SCBA on May 21, Sibal explained how he went about raising the money. 'I started sort of collecting from those who I have served for the last 52 years… I rang up Anil Aggarwal of Vedanta. He readily agreed and gave us a contribution of Rs 5 crore. I rang up Anil Ambani, a dear friend of mine, and he had no choice but to say yes. So he gave Rs 5 crore. I rang up the GMR Group, both Mr Rao as well as Mr Bhaskar Chandran… and they said, 'Sir, now that you have asked, we will make sure that it happens', and it happened, Rs 5 crore,' said Sibal. 'I rang up Gautam Adani, and I said it's time for you to contribute because you are more or less the emperor of India now and Rs 5 crore is too little for you. He said if you want more, I will give more, but here is Rs 5 crore. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' Sibal said. 'Mr Kumar Mangalam Birla, again an old friend of mine… served the Birla empire for many years…never asked them for anything. So I said, another Rs 5 crore from you, and he said yes,' he said. 'Then I rang up another friend of mine, Lakshmi Mittal from London. He picked up the phone and I made that request. He said somebody will get in touch with you soon. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' he said. 'Then again, Mukesh Ambani. I knew Dhirubhai Ambani when I was a young lawyer and we had a very warm relationship…These boys were kids and they used to come to me and I used to do most of their matters in Bombay. So I asked him and he said how much do you want. I said Rs 10 crore. He said you will have the cheque soon. So he gave Rs 10 crore,' Sibal said. 'Then I rang up Natarajan Chandrasekaran of Tata, whom I also know very well…and he also did not hesitate. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' the senior counsel said. 'And from the Torrent Group, Mr Samir Mehta, again a good friend of mine, and, in fact, Dushyant Dave told me, if he doesn't give it, let me know, I will make a call to him. But it didn't really happen. I asked him, he gave Rs 5 crore… In this process, we have Rs 50 crore with us,' Sibal said. He also outlined what was done after raising the amount. 'I contacted Apollo group, who are also my clients. I know the head of the family, head of the Apollo group is an old friend of mine. So I said look, we want you to handle this. He sort of looked at the market and got hold of a company called the National Insurance Company. And we started talking to the National Insurance Company as to what kind of benefits our young lawyers can get. I want to tell you… there is no insurance policy in this country that gives so many benefits as this one does,' he said. Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, who also addressed the event, congratulated the SCBA for raising Rs 50 crore. 'Undoubtedly, this is a remarkable achievement that reflects deep concern for the welfare of the legal community,' he said. Pointing to the difficulties that young lawyers face with no regular income to meet their needs, the CJI said: 'Providing good health insurance, therefore, is not just a welfare measure, it is a vital support system. It offers the lawyers a degree of financial security and peace of mind in times of medical need.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
