Limits of professional privilege

The integrity of our institutions depends on ensuring that professional privilege does not morph into investigative immunity

- SHRIRAM SUBRAMANIAN

THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE'S (ED) recent summons to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal triggered swift outrage from India's legal fraternity, leading to the agency quickly retracting its action. Yet, beneath the surface indignation lies a fundamental question: Should lawyers be immune from investigative scrutiny simply because they represent clients?

In November 2023, InGovern Research put out a report highlighting that the grant of employee stock ownership plans (Esops) by Care Health Insurance to Rashmi Saluja—despite explicit rejection by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)—was not only against the law, but also against the shareholder interests of the listed parent company, Religare. Over 80% of the Esops, valued at over ₹400 crore, were issued to one individual—Saluja, the chairman and managing director of Religare who was also a non-executive director of Care Health Insurance. This issuance of Esops against the law is the core of the ED investigation. The ED issued summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to the two senior advocates due to their advisory roles in decisions under investigation.