Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Oct 15 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to enforce and expand the constitutional right of individuals to access legal advice during all stages of investigation.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran issued notice seeking response from the Center and all states and union territories in the matter. The petition challenges the existing practice of discretionary and partial access to lawyers to arrested and summoned persons.
Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, instructed by advocate Pratik Chadha, submitted that this is a violation of Articles 20(2) and 20(3) of the Constitution, resulting in violation of various human rights including torture during custodial interrogation.
The PIL states that the practice of denying the presence of counsel during interrogation, interrogation or questioning – or only allowing the counsel to be within visible but audible range – is prevalent in laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and argues that such practice creates an environment of coercive interrogation and violates constitutional protections against self-incrimination and the right to Violates the measures. due process.
“This pattern of coercive, piecemeal access to counsel not only violates the right to counsel under Article 22 and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), but also violates the guarantees of due process, fair investigation and fair trial enshrined in Articles 21 and 22, thereby encouraging custodial abuses by investigating agencies and undermining the integrity of the investigation,” the petition said. Is.”
At present, Section 41D of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its latest counterpart in Section 38 of the Indian Civil Defense Code (BNSS), 2023, allow only limited presence of the lawyer during interrogation – often “not within visible but audible limits”.
The PIL argued that such provisions are inadequate and said, “Even the limited statutory powers under Section 41D fail to address the inherent power imbalance that exists during custodial interrogation, whether by the police or any other state authority.” The petition cited international standards such as the US Miranda ruling and the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the Salduz v. Turkey case, which outline unfettered access to legal advice as a cornerstone of justice.
The PIL seeks a constitutional declaration confirming full-time access to legal counsel from the interrogation stage onwards and striking down all statutory and judicial provisions that allow only partial or discretionary access to counsel.
Furthermore, it sought to establish structural safeguards such as video-recorded interrogations, interrogatories, statutory notices of rights, and judicial monitoring of any necessary exceptions.
“These measures are necessary to fulfill India’s constitutional promise of due process, prevent custodial violence and ensure equality and justice in the critical first contact with the criminal justice system,” the PIL said.
–IANS
pds/den