The Chief Judge India Bravai observed that the Directorate for Recovery (ED) “exceeds all the limits”, although the general lawyer Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court to make no “generalized” observations | Photo Credit: Reuters
On Monday (July 21, 2025), India’s chief judge observed that the Directorate for recovery “exceeds all the limits”, although the lawyer Tushar Mehta urged “generalized” observations that could already stimulate the focused efforts that have already made.
The verbal exchange between the bench, including Judge Vinod Chandran and the highest government legal official, became recorded by the Suo Mot by the High Court after the sum of the ED against two higher supporters, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, for the professional council they provided to the client.
The prosecutor General R. Venkataramans took a milder tone, saying that ED was familiar with the fact that “what they did was certainly bad”. He said the summons were later withdrawn.
“Your officers exceed all the limits,” Mr. Venkataramani, Chief Judge, addressed.
At this point, Mr. Mehta intervened to notice that although both lawyers should not be summoned in this case, there was a risk that such observations would be misinterpreted and used against ED as an institution.
“But in many cases, we found that Ed had crossed,” Mr. Mehta replied.
The lawyer said that the construction of the narrative usually began before the Top Court was heard for hearing. “For example, I am a politician involved in fraud of 3,000 GBP. I can create a narration (about ED) through several interviews,” Illustrated Mr. Mehta.
CJI indicated that the court also realized the ground reality in ED cases with political undertones. “There are cases in which ED files appeal even after the High Court has accepted well -justified orders. This is done only because of the appeal,” Gavai, Chief Judge Gavai stressed.
Mr. Mehta replied that “these ground reality must then be shown from reality, material and evidence in the event of a wider observation creates an incorrect impression.”
In many cases, building narratives will begin through interviews before the Supreme Court hears the matter. This is done intentionally, ”a legal officer.
He said that lawyers representing clients in political cases build stories outside the court.
“Can it be done? This is a question of law. My gentlemen must set instructions,” Mr. Mehta said.
Judge Chandran asked Mr. Mehta how the court would affect these “narrations”.
“How do you think these stories will affect us if we do not see them at all. The narration will continue, but you cannot assume that we will influence us,” Mr. Mehta told Judge.
The chief judge asked Mr. Mehta to present evidence of an example when the court made a court decision based on external influences.
“Have you seen any judgments that created us based on the narrative and not on the facts? Show us at least one such judgment and we will remedy,” the CJI officer called on.
One of the higher lawyers asked whether the general lawyer “preliminarily assumed” that the court will be influenced.
The SUO Motu case was registered after the Apex Court Bar Association wrote to the chief judge Gavaim on the “refrigerant effect”, which had an ED summoning on the independence of the legal profession, and ultimately the whole process of justice administration.
On June 25, the court of the peaks obsolete the investigative agencies for direct consent of lawyers in connection with the expert council or assistance to their clients and stated that practice would cause the autonomy of the legal profession. At that time, the court dealt with an independent reasoning reason a lawyer based in Gujarat, which the police convened after securing the bail for their client in the event of a loan dispute. The High Court remained summons. This case was also marked with a matter of Suo Mot.
The court planned the case of a detailed hearing on July 29.
Published – July 21st 2025 2:20
