The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has now issued summons to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal, just days after issuing and withdrawing a similar notice to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar. The latest summons is linked to legal advice Venugopal gave to M/s Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) regarding Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) granted to Dr. Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises Limited (REL).
Read also: SC Quashes Madras HC Arrest Order Against Tamil Nadu ADGP; Probe Now Handed Over to CB-CID
The summons, issued on June 18, instructs Venugopal to present all communication records between himself and CHIL or REL concerning the ESOPs offered to Dr. Saluja. These stock options were reportedly granted despite rejection from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
"The ED has also demanded details of all payments made by CHIL, REL, or any associated entities for the legal services offered by the Senior Advocate," as stated in the summons.
Venugopal has been directed to appear before the Assistant Director of the ED in Mumbai on June 27.
Read also: UP Gangsters Act cannot be used as a tool of harassment: Supreme Court
This development follows an earlier case involving Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who was similarly summoned for providing legal advice in the same ESOP matter. However, that summons was later withdrawn reportedly after significant criticism and pushback from the legal community.
"The legal community condemned the ED’s move as a threat to the independence of the legal profession," said bar associations from across the country.
Notable legal bodies, including the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Madras Bar Association, and Gujarat High Court Advocates Association, expressed their concern.
Read also: Indian Constitution: A Revolutionary Tool for Social Transformation, not Just Governance - CJI BR Gavai
"The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association urged CJI DY Chandrachud to consider framing guidelines for protecting the professional independence of lawyers," the report added.
The growing tension between investigative authorities and the legal fraternity has sparked a nationwide conversation about the sanctity of legal advice and the protection of advocate-client privilege.
