Allahabad High Court censures lawyers for sending reminder emails to ED for reply in bail plea

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday pulled up the counsel representing an accused in a money laundering case for directly communicating with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during the pendency of a bail plea [Padam Singhee vs Directorate of Enforcement].

The lawyers, representing the accused, had sent two emails to the ED Investigating Officer (IO) requesting him to file a reply in the bail matter in accordance with the Court order, to avoid delay in the case.

Justice Samit Gopal took a strong exception to their conduct, saying that if the order for filing the reply was not being complied with, the correct recourse was to inform the Bench.

“Sending e-mails and reminding the authorities of the order(s) of Court and requesting them to comply with it is not in the realm of the duties of counsel(s) appearing in the matter,” the Court said.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the Bar Council of India’s professional conduct rules for advocates.

The rules state that “an advocate shall not in any way communicate or negotiate upon the subject matter of controversy with any party represented by an advocate except through that advocate.” 

The Court opined that the lawyers’ action was not proper and cannot be appreciated as the investigating agency was duly represented by counsel from the first day.

“A counsel cannot identify himself with his client. He cannot interact directly with agencies like Investigating Officer, etc. unless and until ordered so by a court particularly with regards to sub judice proceedings. Interacting directly with agencies, Investigating Officers, etc., is not the duty of a counsel appointed by an accused. He is to represent him in Court only,” it further said.

It added that a counsel’s work is to assist the Court and in case of grievance over non-compliance of order, the proper procedure is to apprise the Bench.

“Thus, this Court does not appreciate the said act/conduct of the counsel(s) for the applicant to send emails directly to the Investigating Officer in a matter which was pending before the Court and considers the objection of learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate to be valid,” it said in conclusion.

The issue related to the lawyers’ communication had been raised by the counsel representing the ED who questioned the competency of counsel representing the accused to directly interact with the investigating agency.

It was argued that such conduct cannot be permitted as it was beyond the professional work of a lawyer “since the said officer gets harassed by the same.”

In response, the counsel representing the accused explained that their emails were only a reminder to the agency to comply with Court’s order. 

However, the Court did not accept the explanation and chose to deal with the issue while deciding the bail plea of the accused.

Interestingly, the accused Padam Singhee, Joint Managing Director of the SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited, was today granted bail by the High Court in the case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal with advocates Tanveer Ahmad Mir and Ram M Kaushik represented the accused.

Additional Solicitor General Gyan Prakash and advocates JP Mishra and Kuldeep Srivastava represented the ED.

[Read Order]