In a significant ruling that upholds the foundational principles of justice and legal ethics, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that investigating agencies cannot summon a lawyer merely for providing legal advice to a client who is under investigation. The apex court took suo motu cognisance of the matter after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to two senior lawyers solely on the grounds that they had rendered professional services to individuals under probe. This judgment marks a crucial reaffirmation of the constitutional and professional independence of the legal fraternity. It underscores a basic tenet of any democratic system — that every individual has a right to legal representation, and that advocates cannot be penalised or criminalised for fulfilling that role. Legal counsel must be able to function without fear or threat from investigative agencies. If lawyers are made to fear that rendering advice could lead to summons, scrutiny, or coercive action, it will create a chilling effect that undermines access to justice itself. The Supreme Court’s intervention comes at a time when there is growing concern over investigative overreach and the misuse of procedural powers. While agencies like the ED play a vital role in unearthing financial crimes and maintaining the rule of law, their actions must remain within the bounds of constitutional propriety. A lawyer is not an accomplice merely because he or she offers legal guidance to an accused person. The sanctity of client-lawyer confidentiality — protected under the Indian Evidence Act — is not just a professional obligation but a cornerstone of a fair legal system. Moreover, summoning lawyers for doing their job sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to harassment and misuse of power, potentially discouraging legal professionals from representing clients in sensitive or politically charged cases. This could further erode public trust in institutions and restrict citizens’ ability to defend themselves against state action. The Supreme Court’s suo motu stance also sends a strong message to all enforcement agencies: accountability and checks on power are non-negotiable in a democratic society. Just as accused individuals must be investigated lawfully, professionals who facilitate due process must be protected from intimidation. The judiciary, by drawing this line, has preserved both the dignity of the legal profession and the spirit of justice. In an era where state powers are expanding, such judgments are vital to ensure that rule of law prevails over rule by law. The legal profession must remain fearless, and the Supreme Court has rightly ensured that it does.