Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Condemns ED Notice to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar
- ByAdmin --
- 17 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) recently issued a strongly worded condemnation regarding the issuance of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) notice to senior advocate Arvind Datar. This development has stirred discussions on the use of investigative powers and the protection of professional independence within the judiciary.
Background of the Incident
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, known for his contributions to constitutional and corporate law, was served a notice by the ED under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The notice allegedly pertained to transactions linked to a corporate client. While details remain confidential, the issuance of such notices to senior members of the bar has raised concerns over the misuse of investigative mechanisms.
SCAORA's Statement
SCAORA, representing advocates practicing before the Supreme Court, criticized the ED’s move as an overreach and a potential threat to the independence of legal professionals. The association emphasized that legal representation should not expose advocates to coercive action, especially when acting within the ethical framework of the profession.
The association’s statement highlighted:
- Independence of the Bar: Advocates must be free to represent their clients without fear of reprisal.
- Misuse of Investigative Powers: The issuance of notices in the absence of prima facie evidence undermines the credibility of investigative agencies.
- Precedents on Advocate Privilege: Referencing Lalit Mohan Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, SCAORA reiterated that legal professionals enjoy certain privileges in the discharge of their duties.
Legal Framework and Issues
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Section 3 defines the offense of money laundering.
- Section 50 empowers ED officials to summon individuals, requiring them to produce records or provide evidence.
- Section 3 defines the offense of money laundering.
- However, these provisions must be balanced against protections afforded to legal professionals under the law.
- Advocate-Client Privilege
- Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects confidential communications between advocates and clients.
- Investigative notices cannot compel disclosure of privileged information unless specific exceptions apply.
- Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects confidential communications between advocates and clients.
- Judicial Independence
- The principle of judicial independence extends to advocates, ensuring their ability to represent clients without undue pressure.
- In Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, the court stressed that advocates play a pivotal role in ensuring justice and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.
- The principle of judicial independence extends to advocates, ensuring their ability to represent clients without undue pressure.
Implications of ED’s Actions
The issuance of notices to senior advocates can have a chilling effect on the legal fraternity. Professionals may become hesitant to represent clients in contentious matters, fearing scrutiny or harassment. This, in turn, could impact the fair administration of justice.
The incident also raises questions about accountability and transparency in the actions of investigative agencies. Critics argue that without adequate safeguards, such powers can be weaponized for political or personal vendettas.
The Way Forward
To address these concerns, several measures can be considered:
- Strengthening Legal Safeguards: Clear guidelines should regulate the issuance of notices to advocates under laws like the PMLA.
- Judicial Oversight: A mechanism for judicial review of investigative actions against legal professionals can act as a deterrent against misuse.
- Advocate Accountability: While protecting their independence, advocates must also adhere to ethical standards, ensuring no misuse of their privileged position.
Conclusion
The ED’s notice to senior advocate Arvind Datar has ignited a broader debate about the limits of investigative authority and the protection of professional independence. As SCAORA aptly noted, the judiciary and its stakeholders must be shielded from undue interference to uphold the principles of justice and democracy. This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between enforcement of the law and safeguarding fundamental rights.
Acts and Articles Referenced:
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 126)
- Constitution of India (Article 19(1)(g), Article 21)
- Relevant judicial precedents.
RELATED Blog
0 comments