Back
Supreme Court Rules Accused Lacks Right To Constant Lawyer Presence During Police
The has delivered a significant ruling balancing the of the police against the of an accused. In a directive that refines the application of the (BNSS), a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that an accused does not possess an unqualified right to the continuous, ongoing presence of an advocate throughout every moment of police interrogation.
The Genesis of the Dispute
The legal challenge stemmed from the custodial death of one Gade Sai Krishna, who was apprehended in . The case against the accused, Inspector Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, involved allegations of and . Following the discovery of missing CCTV evidence at the , a was formed. When the SIT secured , the and later the imposed several stringent conditions—including constant lawyer presence during interrogation and mandatory, uninterrupted videography of the accused's transit spanning 160 kilometers.
The State of Andhra Pradesh challenged these conditions, arguing that such constraints rendered the investigation of this serious offense practically impossible.
Balancing Investigative Needs and Rights
The Supreme Court analyzed the workability of the bail conditions within the framework of the newly enacted BNSS. The Court rejected the argument that the accused required a lawyer present during every second of questioning. It ruled that while guarantees the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, this does not equate to a right to have counsel remain physically present in the room throughout the entirety of the interrogation session.
The bench further addressed the logistical nightmare of the existing transit videography mandate. The Court held that while audio-visual recording of actual interrogation sessions is a critical safeguard against , requiring continuous recording of travel between Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada was "unworkable in practice" due to risks of signal loss, battery failure, and security considerations during road travel.
Key Observations from the Bench
Highlighting the statutory intent behind the BNSS, the Court noted:
- “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.”
- “This legislative change was intended precisely to meet situations, such as the present, where fresh facts, discoveries or leads may emerge during the course of investigation warranting further .”
- “What the safeguard requires is that the interrogation itself, that is, the actual questioning of, or interaction with, the respondent-accused be continuously and .”
Practical Implications for Future Cases
The Supreme Court modified the previous orders, allowing the SIT to interrogate the accused at any secure, designated facility in Vijayawada rather than being confined to the prison. The ruling clarifies four central principles: 1. Legal Presence: Advocates may be positioned within the line of sight but cannot intervene or remain during the entirety of the interrogation. 2. Custodial Flexibility: allows for police custody in parts across an extended window, and courts should not impose arbitrary total time limits that frustrate these provisions. 3. Recording Standards: Safeguards must be practical; recording must focus on the substance of interrogation and discovery rather than mundane transport. 4. Safety Responsibility: The accountability for the physical well-being of the accused lies jointly and severally with the investigating officers and prison authorities, ensuring protections remain paramount regardless of the setting.
By setting aside the unworkable conditions, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that while the law provides robust protections for the accused, these must not serve as functional barriers to the administration of justice in sensitive criminal investigations.
