New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgement in a suo motu case initiated by it to consider the issue of probe agencies summoning lawyers who provide legal advice to accused involved in criminal cases.
The suo motu was initiated by the top court after it had issued summons to two senior lawyers for rendering legal advice to their clients. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai reserved its verdict after briefly hearing arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other lawyers. "Lawyers need to be protected. Provisions are already there. But if they are party to the commission of crime, (they are not entitled to protection)," Mehta submitted. The bench said that it has already made it clear that no protection can be extended to such lawyers.
At the last hearing, Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh had suggested that the guidelines issued by the ED to its officers should be adopted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other investigating agencies as well. Singh had further suggested that for CBI and state police, there should be permission from the Superintendent of Police for issuance of summons to lawyers. He had further proposed that summons to a lawyer should be sent only after the concerned judicial magistrate clears the same.
The development took place during the resumed hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the SC on summons issued by ED to two senior advocates - Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal - in the course of ED's investigation into the grant of over 22.7 million Employee Stock Option Plans, valued at more than ₹250 crore, by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
The suo motu was initiated by the top court after it had issued summons to two senior lawyers for rendering legal advice to their clients. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai reserved its verdict after briefly hearing arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other lawyers. "Lawyers need to be protected. Provisions are already there. But if they are party to the commission of crime, (they are not entitled to protection)," Mehta submitted. The bench said that it has already made it clear that no protection can be extended to such lawyers.
At the last hearing, Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh had suggested that the guidelines issued by the ED to its officers should be adopted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other investigating agencies as well. Singh had further suggested that for CBI and state police, there should be permission from the Superintendent of Police for issuance of summons to lawyers. He had further proposed that summons to a lawyer should be sent only after the concerned judicial magistrate clears the same.
The development took place during the resumed hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the SC on summons issued by ED to two senior advocates - Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal - in the course of ED's investigation into the grant of over 22.7 million Employee Stock Option Plans, valued at more than ₹250 crore, by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
You may also like
Hollyoaks star Roxanne McKee, 45, reveals she is pregnant with her first child
Can Donald Trump take over Washington DC?
TISS To Host Screening Of 'Demography Is Destiny' On 'Partition Horrors Remembrance Day'
Norwest Venture eyes a bite of Belgian Waffle
Romeo Beckham shuns first class on Jet2 flight as Brooklyn bonds with billionaire in-laws
