New Delhi | June 18, 2025
In a sharp response to what it termed an “alarming disregard for legal sanctity,” the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) issuance of a summons to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar in connection with an ongoing financial probe. The Bar called the move an unwarranted breach of legal privilege and a threat to the independence of the legal profession.
The summons, issued in relation to a legal opinion Datar had rendered in a case involving the Care Health Insurance ESOP controversy, has since been withdrawn by the ED following nationwide backlash from the legal fraternity.
DHCBA’s Statement: “This Sets a Dangerous Precedent”
In its official resolution dated June 18, the DHCBA warned that calling upon a senior advocate to explain or justify legal advice rendered to a client strikes at the heart of the legal system.
“If legal opinions are treated as evidence of complicity, no lawyer will ever be able to advise a client without fear,” the Association said.
It also stated that such actions risk creating a “chilling effect” across the legal landscape where lawyers may hesitate to offer candid advice due to fear of being summoned in investigations.
Background: What Triggered the Summons?
The issue stems from the ED’s investigation into alleged financial irregularities linked to Religare Enterprises and its former Executive Chairperson Dr. Rashmi Saluja.
A specific point of interest for the ED was a set of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) allegedly issued in violation of SEBI norms by Care Health Insurance, a Religare group entity.
Arvind Datar had provided a legal opinion on the ESOP scheme in 2023. The ED sought to question him on the rationale of that opinion as part of its ongoing money laundering investigation.
The summons sparked widespread outrage within legal circles, not just due to Datar’s stature but because it involved compelling an advocate to speak on privileged communication protected under the Indian Evidence Act.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Lawyers and legal experts noted that the ED’s action could infringe upon:
• Sections 126–129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bar disclosure of confidential legal communications without the client’s consent.
• Article 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to legal counsel.
• The broader doctrine of legal professional privilege, vital to the functioning of any fair justice system.
Widespread Legal Backlash
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and Madras Bar Association also denounced the ED’s move. Legal bodies uniformly stressed that lawyers are not parties to the dispute unless criminal complicity is independently established merely giving an opinion cannot form the basis of investigation.
Bar associations also argued that if investigative bodies begin targeting advocates for legal opinions, the fundamental right to legal defence will stand seriously compromised.
