SC seeks responses of Centre, states on PIL for presence of lawyer during police quizzing

New Delhi, Oct 15 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre, all the states and Union territories to respond to a PIL seeking a declaration that an individual has a fundamental right to have his or her lawyer present during interrogation by police or other probe agencies.

A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notices on the plea filed by lawyer Shaffi Mather, who has sought to read such a right as part of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3), 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

At the outset, the bench asked senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for Mather, whether the PIL cited any instances of duress or coercion faced by individuals during questioning.

"Are there instances of need for counsel in the petition," Justice Chandran asked.

Guruswamy submitted that the plea had been moved in public interest to ensure legal safeguards during interrogation.

She argued that the presence of counsel helps individuals understand whether specific questions are incriminating, thereby preventing coerced or uninformed self-incrimination.

In response to the query, the senior lawyer referred to the "India: Annual Report on Torture 2019" published by the National Campaign Against Torture, which documents widespread patterns of custodial torture and impunity.

The plea contends that selective or discretionary permission to access legal counsel during interrogation violates fundamental rights and often leads to custodial violence and deaths.

It states that the current practice, where access to lawyers is either denied or restricted to "visible but not audible" proximity, violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner under Article 22(1).

The plea said such practices persist across various laws, including the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which permit interrogation without the presence of counsel or restrict counsel to limited visibility.

The plea sought directions to recognize the right to have a lawyer present during questioning as a non-discretionary and unalienable right.

It also sought framing of guidelines ensuring access to counsel during interrogation consistent with Articles 20(3), 21, and 22(1) of the Constitution.

It also sought a direction mandating the notice of the right to silence and right to counsel for every person called for questioning. PTI SJK ZMN