Supreme Court of India.
Enforcement Directorate (ED) Notice to Advocates: New Delhi – India’s Supreme Court has raised a fundamental question about the independence of the legal profession. It has put a temporary stop to the Gujarat Police summoning a lawyer for questioning in a criminal case involving his client. The Court highlighted that forcing lawyers to appear before the police could undermine the autonomy of the legal field.
A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has sent this crucial matter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for detailed consideration. They have also outlined two key legal questions for a larger bench to decide.
“What is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously and fearlessly discharge their professional duties,” the Bench observed. They added that “subjecting the Counsel in a case to the beck and call of the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police prima facie appears to be completely untenable.”
The Court warned that allowing police or other agencies to directly summon lawyers who advise clients “would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice.”
The Case at Hand
The issue arose from a petition filed by Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati, a practicing advocate. He received a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) from the Gujarat Police. This notice demanded his appearance for questioning in connection with an FIR against his client. The FIR involved various charges under the Indian Penal Code, including assault and criminal intimidation.
Prajapati argued that he was being summoned purely because of his professional role as a lawyer in the case, not because he had any involvement as an accused. He approached the Supreme Court seeking protection, stating that such actions threatened his professional independence.
SC took the issue of Enforcement Directorate issuing notice to lawyers seriously.
Court’s Reasoning and Broader Implications
The Supreme Court took the matter very seriously. It recognized the deep legal and constitutional implications of police summoning a lawyer directly involved in a criminal case. The Bench noted that the issue touches upon the broader autonomy of the legal profession and the fundamental structure of justice administration.
The Court emphasized the unique position of lawyers in the legal system. “The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice,” the Bench stated. Lawyers, besides their fundamental rights, also possess specific rights and privileges due to their professional status and statutory provisions like Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which protects client-attorney communications.
The judges warned against the impropriety of agencies directly summoning lawyers for their professional work. They stressed that any investigative action against a lawyer, if taken without judicial oversight, could interfere with the core functioning of the legal profession. The Court highlighted that the ability of lawyers to “fearlessly discharge their professional duties” is directly at risk.
The Bench found that subjecting lawyers to such investigative pressure without clear judicial oversight was “completely untenable.” They noted that if an exceptional situation arises where a lawyer’s role extends beyond mere professional representation, such matters must be assessed through judicial review, not through unilateral police action.
Questions for the CJI
Given the constitutional and systemic importance of the issue, the Supreme Court has framed two crucial legal questions for a larger bench, to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India:
“When an individual has the association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?”
“Assuming that the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency/Police has a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then should they be directly permitted to summon or should judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criterion of cases?”
Recognizing the seriousness, the Court has granted interim relief. It has restrained the Gujarat Police from summoning the petitioner-advocate until further orders, also staying the operation of the police notice issued to him.
The Supreme Court has also issued notices to the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, and the Chairman of the Bar Council of India. Their assistance has been sought to help the Court decide on this vital matter. The case (Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat & Anr. – Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9334/2025) has now been placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate listing and consideration by a suitable bench.
This development follows recent concerns within the legal community, including instances where senior advocates were summoned by investigative agencies, prompting strong condemnation from bar associations. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals a concerted effort to clarify the boundaries of investigative powers concerning the legal profession, aiming to safeguard the independence of justice administration.
