Particle.news
Download on the App Store

Supreme Court Seeks Government Responses on PIL for Lawyer Presence During Interrogation

The petition asks the court to treat effective counsel access during questioning as a non-discretionary constitutional safeguard to prevent coercion.

Overview

  • A bench of CJI B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued notice and called for replies from the Union, all states and union territories.
  • Filed by advocate Shaffi Mather with Advocate-on-Record Prateek K. Chadha, the PIL was argued by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy.
  • The plea seeks a declaration that individuals have a right to a lawyer’s presence during police or agency questioning, and asks that CrPC Section 41D, BNSS Section 38 and PMLA Section 50 be read to guarantee nondiscretionary access.
  • The bench requested concrete instances of duress, and counsel cited the National Campaign Against Torture’s 2019 report and NHRC findings, including data on custodial deaths.
  • The petition challenges practices such as “visible but not audible” access under special laws including PMLA and NDPS, and seeks safeguards like notices of rights, video-recorded interrogations and judicial oversight of any exceptions.