New Delhi, Jul 21 (UNI) The General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings concerning investigative agencies summoning advocates for legal advice rendered by them.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran today allowed the intervention applications filed in relation to the matter.
The intervention application filed through Advocate EC Agrawala highlighted that in-house lawyers perform core legal functions, drafting pleadings, preparing affidavits, and advising on complex corporate and taxation matters within their companies, similar to external advocates.
“The said in-house counsels undertake drafting, preparation of pleadings and affidavits, and advise on various legal issues.
They are the first persons whose legal advice is sought by the company, often without seeking secondary advice from outside counsel,” the application states, Agrawala said.
The plea argues that the principles of privilege and confidentiality between a lawyer and client apply equally to in-house counsel as they render legal advice in their corporate roles.
It cites that countries like Singapore, the UK, Australia, and the USA extend attorney-client privilege to in-house counsel for legal (not business) advice.
The GCAI, representing in-house legal counsel of leading companies, has argued that corporate counsel must also be afforded safeguards against legal action for professional advice rendered.
Among the senior in-house legal counsels who have moved to the Court are Hemant Kumar (Larsen & Toubro), Sanjeev Gemawat (Essar; GCAI Founder), Akhil Prasad (Boeing India), Vineet Vij (Tech Mahindra), and CV Raghu (Samvardhana Motherson Group). Deepak Jacob (Dream Sports), Sujeet Jain (Nykaa)
The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings on July 9 after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, sparking widespread criticism from bar associations nationwide.
The ED later withdrew the summons and issued a circular directing its field offices not to summon advocates in violation of Section 132, clarifying that any exception must now be approved by its Director.
