Supreme Court Enhances Safeguards for Lawyers Facing Investigative Summons

The Supreme Court recently addressed the sensitive issue of investigative agencies, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), issuing summons to senior legal professionals. In a suo motu proceeding, the Court considered how far agencies can go without infringing upon the independence of the Bar. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who himself experienced such summons, believes the Supreme Court has provided a clear and effective remedy.

Instead of creating a peer-review mechanism, which the Court deemed impractical, it has opted to strengthen existing legal provisions. Key safeguards introduced include a requirement for senior-level approval before any summons can be issued to an advocate. For instance, a Superintendent of Police's prior sanction is now mandatory, acting as a filter against arbitrary actions by lower-ranking officers. Furthermore, all such summons will be subject to automatic judicial review under relevant sections of the law (like Section 482/528 of the BNSS mentioned in the context of judicial review).

Datar also clarified the concept of attorney-client privilege, emphasizing that it belongs to the client, not the advocate, and protects confidential communications. He highlighted the practical challenges concerning digital data seizure, noting that court approval for accessing devices might help limit the scope to relevant files, preventing exposure of unrelated client information. The judgment, however, excludes in-house counsel from certain protections, a point Datar feels could have been extended.

Impact: This judgment is expected to significantly reduce arbitrary summoning of lawyers by investigative agencies. It reinforces the integrity of the legal process and upholds the fundamental right to confidential legal advice, ensuring greater protection for both advocates and their clients against potential overreach. This could lead to a more balanced approach in investigations involving legal professionals. Rating: 8/10

Definitions: - **Suo Motu**: A legal term meaning 'on its own motion.' It refers to a court taking action without a formal application from the parties involved in a case. - **Bar**: The collective body of lawyers in a particular jurisdiction. - **Client Privilege (Attorney-Client Privilege)**: The legal right that protects confidential communications between a client and their lawyer from being disclosed to others. This privilege belongs to the client. - **PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)**: An act of the Indian Parliament to combat money laundering. - **Predicate Offences**: These are the underlying criminal activities that are the foundation for charges like money laundering. For example, cheating or certain fraud cases can be predicate offences. - **BNSS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)**: This appears to refer to sections of a new criminal law framework. In the context of the article, it relates to procedural aspects like summoning individuals (Section 94) and the mechanism for judicial review of such actions (Section 528). - **SHO (Station House Officer)**: The police officer in charge of a police station. - **Judicial Review**: The power of courts to review the legality and constitutionality of actions taken by government agencies or officials. - **In-house Counsel**: Lawyers who are employed directly by a company to provide legal services exclusively to that company.