Suo motu lawyer summons case: GCAI moves Supreme Court seeking protection for in-house lawyers

The General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) has filed an intervention application in the proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court concerning investigating agencies summoning advocates for legal advice given by them. 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran on Monday allowed the intervention applications filed in relation to the matter.

Among the General Counsel who have moved the Court are:

Hemant Kumar - Larsen & Toubro

Sanjeev Gemawat - Essar (and GCAI Founder)

Akhil Prasad - Boeing India

Vineet Vij - Tech Mahindra

CV Raghu - Samvardhana Motherson Group

Deepak Jacob - Dream Sports

Sujeet Jain - Nykaa

GCAI is an umbrella body representing in-house legal counsel of prominent companies. It has argued that in-house legal counsel must also be afforded adequate safeguards and protection against legal action.

Apart from appearing before courts, in-house lawyers perform the same roles as advocates and are practising the profession of law within their corporate domain, the plea says.

“The said in-house counsels undertake drafting, drafting of pleadings, preparation of affidavits, advising on various legal issues, legal advice on complex corporate and taxation matters etc. They are the first person whose legal advice is taken by the Company. In many instances, the company acts on the legal advice of the in-house counsels and does not even go out to take secondary advice from outside counsels,” the intervention application states.

The plea argues that the principles of privilege and confidentiality between a lawyer and a client apply equally to an in-house counsel because they also render legal advice and perform associated tasks in relation to the legal affairs of the concerned corporation.

It has been pointed that countries like Singapore, UK, Australia and the USA recognise and extend attorney-client privilege to in-house counsel when they render legal (and not business) advice.

The intervention application has been filed through Advocate EC Agrawala. 

The Supreme Court on July 9 had initiated suo motu proceedings on the issue of agencies summoning lawyers, days after Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal.

The ED later withdrew the summons, following widespread criticism from bar associations across the nation.

In response to the backlash, the ED also issued a circular directing all field offices not to issue summons to advocates in violation of Section 132. The central agency clarified that any summons under the statutory exceptions must now be approved by the Director of the ED.