In what could be a huge relief to the legal fraternity, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has disagreed with the proposed amendments in the Competition Bill whereby the Director General (Investigation) of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can examine on oath advocates representing corporates during an investigation.
The House panel, in its report tabled in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, agreed with the suggestions received from stakeholders and noted that allowing the DG to examine the legal advisors of parties under investigation goes against attorney-client privilege, and contravenes the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bar Council of India Rules.
The committee recommended modifying the proposal to clarify that it will not impinge on the Indian Evidence Act or any other Act that protects attorney-client privilege.
This recommendation has allayed the fears of the Bar that subjecting independent legal professionals to depositions on oath by the DG may undermine their independence and privileged status.
The panel, however, clarified that legal advisors employed by a company or firm will continue to be included within the definition of any of the officers and other employees and agents of the parties being investigated, as proposed in the Bill.
FICCI’s submission
Industry chamber FICCI had, in its suggestions to the Parliamentary panel, said, “The Competition Act prescribes civil penalties for violations prescribed therein and must not contain provisions such as the one in question which portray the nature of the legislation as an extraordinary criminal statute, permitting deposition of legal advisers in extraordinary circumstances.
“It is highly probable that such a provision, if inserted in the Amended Competition Act, be struck down as unconstitutional considering that it is against established principles of law.”
The suggested amendment overrides the fundamental principles of legal policy and right to legal representation and is an unwelcome change that unintentionally derogates from years of precedent on the subject of legal privilege and the Indian Evidence Act, FICCI added.
MCA’s stance
The Corporate Affairs Ministry (MCA), however, defended the proposal, pointing out that it does not override the legal privilege or attorney-client privilege. It only provided for seeking information on parties under investigation. The Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, has vetted this provision of the Bill, the MCA said in its response to the objections.