New Delhi, Oct 31 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to two senior lawyers, and laid down guidelines restricting probe agencies from calling advocates for questioning over legal advice given to clients.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria delivered the verdict in a suo motu case taken up after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoned senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in connection with a money laundering probe.

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Chandran said the bench had sought to “harmonise the exemption to the rule” protecting advocates and issued fresh directions to safeguard the legal profession from undue pressure by probe agencies.

The bench said probe agencies shall not issue summons to any advocate seeking details of clients, unless it is covered under the relevant law.

It said the digital devices of lawyers can be seized only before a jurisdictional court and they can be opened only in their presence and parties after the objections are overruled.

Setting aside the ED’s summons issued earlier to the lawyers, the bench said they infringed the fundamental rights of accused who hired advocates. “The summons could result in infringement of the fundamental rights of the accused who had reposed faith in the lawyer,” the bench said, terming such actions violative of statutory safeguards.

“Investigating authorities shall not issue summons to any advocate seeking details of the client, unless it is covered under the exceptions in Section 132,” the court held, referring to the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the new law which replaced the Evidence Act.

The detailed judgement is awaited.

On August 12, the bench had reserved its verdict in the matter, calling itself the “custodian of all citizens in the country” while addressing concerns about probe agencies seeking to question lawyers representing accused persons.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated after the ED summoned Datar and Venugopal, a move sharply criticised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) as a “disturbing trend” undermining the legal profession.

Following the controversy, the ED had on June 20 issued internal directions barring its officers from summoning advocates in money laundering cases except with prior approval of the Director and in compliance with Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. PTI SJK SJK DV DV

Advocate-client privilege limits agency summons, restricting questioning of lawyers and protecting client confidentiality during probes. The Court invalidated ED summons to senior advocates and directed that investigators shall not summon advocates for client details or legal advice except under statutory exceptions, warning such summonses can infringe accused persons' fundamental rights. It ruled that seizure of lawyers' digital devices requires prior presentation to a jurisdictional court and that inspection can occur only in the advocate's presence after objections are resolved, and directed investigatory agencies to comply with internal approval requirements and the exceptions in the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.