New Delhi, July 27, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has clarified that an accused person does not have an absolute right to the continuous presence of a lawyer during police interrogation, ruling that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) guarantees only the right to meet an advocate during questioning and not the lawyer’s uninterrupted physical presence throughout the interrogation.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling while modifying conditions imposed by a trial court, and partly upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in connection with the police custody of a suspended police inspector accused in a custodial death case.
Interpreting Section 38 of the BNSS, the apex court held that the statutory provision cannot be construed to require an advocate’s constant presence during every stage of interrogation.
“A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the right guaranteed thereunder is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session,” the Bench observed.
The court said the conditions permitting the accused to nominate advocates and regulating their presence at the interrogation venue were appropriate. However, it ruled that any interpretation allowing an advocate to remain present throughout the interrogation exceeded the scope of Section 38 of the BNSS.
Modifying the earlier directions, the Bench held that the accused’s lawyer may remain at a location from where the accused is visible during interrogation but cannot interfere with the investigation in any manner.
The Supreme Court also set aside the condition restricting custodial interrogation exclusively to the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram. It observed that such a limitation would seriously hamper the investigation, particularly in a custodial death case where the victim’s body has not yet been recovered and further recoveries are pending.
The Bench agreed with the Andhra Pradesh government’s contention that some of the conditions imposed by the lower courts had made effective custodial interrogation difficult. It, however, reiterated that constitutional safeguards against coercion, torture and third-degree methods remain integral to the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and are binding on investigating agencies irrespective of specific court directions.
On the issue of videography, the Supreme Court retained the requirement for CCTV surveillance and audio-visual recording of interrogation proceedings, stating that such safeguards protect both the accused from coercive practices and investigators from false allegations.
At the same time, the court held that requiring uninterrupted videography of every movement of an accused during transit over long distances was impractical due to logistical challenges, including signal disruptions, battery limitations and security concerns.
The judgment was delivered on an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had substantially upheld the conditions imposed by a Magistrate while granting police custody of the suspended police inspector.
FOLLOW NOW
