On Monday, the Supreme Court killed the Directorate for the enforcement of the right to summon the advocate to provide legal council and represent clients during the investigation and stated that the agency exceeds all limits. SC also demanded instructions on this matter.
The bench of the main Judge Bravai and the justice to Vinod Chandran heard the case of Suo Mot, which would deal with the consequences of such measures on the independence of the legal profession, the PTI press agency reported.
This is due to the fact that Ed is summoned by higher lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.
“Although it is wrong, communication between a lawyer and clients is privileged communication. How can they go against them? There should be certain instructions,” Cji said. “They (ED) exceed all the limits,” he added.
Although responding to a submission that a recent announcement of legal professionals, such as a higher data lawyer, could have a chilled effect on legal practice, CJI said: “Instructions should be framed.”
“Attempts at a malignant institution”
This question was initiated at the highest level and the probe agency was asked not to give lawyers notification of the provision of legal services, the General Prosecutor R Vencataramanan and the General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court.
Vencataramans soon said to hear that he had a word with ED officials and the summons of lawyers were wrong, PTI reported.
“Lawyers cannot be convened for rendering legal opinions,” Mehta agreed with Venkataramani. However, Mehta said there were attempts at a malignant institution by creating false stories.
China, an example of Turkey quoted at the best court
The President of the Association of Advocates and the Association of the Supreme Court Vikas Singh explained the problem with the examples of China and Turkey: “India should not go the way of other countries that intervened the independence of the legal profession.”
“My gentlemen can set it once and for all, because the European Human Rights Commission also has something to say. The entire Barning Chamber has been dissolved in Turkey. China also has a similar problem,” he added.
The lawyers stressed that the convening of lawyers, especially for the provision of legal opinions, determined a dangerous precedent.
“Otherwise, it will have a cooling effect on the whole system of justice delivery. Lawyers will not be able to inform my masters freely,” the lawyer said.
One lawyer said, “If he continues, he discourages lawyers from the offer of honorary and independent advice.”
(Tagstotranslate) Supreme Court (T) Directorate for Recovery (T) Legal Advice (T) Privileged Communication (T) Independence of Legal Profession
