Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Judicial References Supporting Presence of Advocate During Examination / Interrogation

 

Judicial References Supporting Presence of Advocate During Examination / Interrogation

1. Senior Intelligence Officer v. Jugal Kishore Sharma, (2011) 12 SCC 362

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although an accused is not entitled to have his lawyer physically seated beside him during interrogation, he is entitled to have his lawyer within visible distance, not within hearing distance, to ensure protection of his constitutional rights and prevent coercion.

🔹 Principle: Presence of an advocate within sight of the accused during investigation ensures fair procedure and prevents abuse.


2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424

The Supreme Court held that interrogation must be fair, non-oppressive and non-coercive. It recognised the right of an accused to consult a lawyer during questioning and protected the right against self-incrimination.

🔹 Direct Quote (Paraphrased):
A person being interrogated has the right to the presence of counsel to ensure protection of constitutional guarantees and prevent compulsory self-incrimination.


3. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

The Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines to prevent custodial abuse. It mandated procedural safeguards ensuring transparency of investigation and held that the character of investigation must be compatible with Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

🔹 Relevant Extraction:
The right to consult a lawyer during interrogation is a safeguard to ensure that interrogation is not marred by abuse or coercion.


4. Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240

The Supreme Court affirmed that criminal procedure must uphold human dignity and preserve the fairness of the investigation.

🔹 Relevance:
Legal assistance during the investigative stage reinforces fairness, preventing prejudicial and irretrievable harm.


5. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India

Constitutional immunity against self-incrimination — a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.

🔹 Relevance:
Presence of an advocate ensures that the statement is voluntary and not extracted through inducement, coercion, or threat.


1 comment: