Venugopal acquired a textual content message from the company on Friday afternoon informing him that the discover “stands withdrawn with instant impact.”
The summons pertained to the continued investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance. (HT picture)
Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to look earlier than the ED on June 24 beneath Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, acquired a textual content message from the company on Friday afternoon informing him that the discover “stands withdrawn with instant impact.”
The summons pertained to the continued investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a authorized opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar within the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as effectively, however that discover too was rescinded following backlash from the authorized fraternity.
In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as “a deeply disquieting improvement,” and warned that coercive measures towards legal professionals for skilled authorized opinions strike on the coronary heart of authorized privilege and the basic tenets of the rule of legislation.
SCAORA asserted that such actions signify an “impermissible transgression” into the constitutionally protected sphere of authorized recommendation.
“The function of an advocate in providing authorized recommendation is each privileged and guarded. Interference by investigative businesses, significantly in respect of opinions rendered in knowledgeable capability—strikes on the core of the rule of legislation,” the letter said.
SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to look at the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for skilled opinions and referred to as for the framing of clear tips to insulate the authorized career from comparable overreach sooner or later.
This is the second time in current days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public assertion condemning the ED’s discover to Datar as “unwarranted” and a manifestation of rising investigative overreach.
Similar issues have echoed throughout the authorized panorama. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association handed a decision criticising the ED’s actions, warning of a direct menace to the constitutional proper to authorized illustration and honest trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association additionally convened an emergency assembly, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for pressing authorities motion to guard lawyer-client privilege via amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
While ED has not formally disclosed causes for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the transfer as an implicit recognition of the intense constitutional {and professional} points flagged by the authorized group.
Leave a Comment