The Supreme Court of India, under the bench of the Chief Justice of India and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has recently issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Shaffi Mather, which seeks to dramatically reshape the legal landscape of custodial and pre-custodial interrogation.

The PIL’s core contention is that the current status quo—where access to a lawyer during questioning is often discretionary, limited, or restricted—undermines the very spirit of the Constitution. The petitioner seeks a directive from the top court to ensure the guaranteed presence of legal counsel for any individual being questioned, detained, or interrogated by the police or other state agencies, making it a non-discretionary, non-discriminatory, and unalienable right.

Invoking Fundamental Rights: Articles 20(3), 21, and 22(1)

The petition anchors its argument in the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution:

1)Article 20(3) (Right Against Self-Incrimination): The plea argues that the right to remain silent can only be truly exercised when the individual has full and unfettered access to legal advice, counteracting the inherently coercive atmosphere of an interrogation room.
2)Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): It contends that fair investigation and due process are integral components of Article 21, and denial of legal presence violates the procedure established by law.
3)Article 22(1) (Right to Consult a Lawyer): The PIL asserts that the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice is rendered meaningless if access is restricted during the most critical phase—the initial questioning.

The current judicial guidelines, largely stemming from landmark cases like the D.K. Basu guidelines, permit an arrestee to meet their lawyer during interrogation, "though not throughout," and subsequent court orders have often interpreted this as permitting the lawyer’s presence from a "visible but not audible" distance.

The PIL directly targets this restrictive practice, arguing that "visible but not audible" presence is merely a symbolic gesture that fails to protect the individual from coercive tactics or forced confessions. The petitioner insists that a full and effective presence is required to ensure the fundamental rights of the citizen are protected, particularly under statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), where custodial pressures are often intense.

To institute effective change, the PIL goes beyond just the lawyer's presence, urging the Supreme Court to mandate additional structural safeguards:

Mandatory Notice of Rights: The investigating agencies must be compelled to issue a statutory notice informing the individual of their Right to Silence and Right to Counsel before any questioning begins.
Video Recording: The plea calls for all enquiries, questioning, and interrogations to be video-recorded as a default measure to ensure transparency and prevent abuse.
Judicial Oversight: It seeks a framework for judicial oversight of any exceptions to the rule of a lawyer's presence.

The Supreme Court's issuance of notice marks the beginning of a crucial legal deliberation that could redefine the rights of individuals in the face of state investigation, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with the constitutional imperative of protecting fundamental human rights and ensuring a fair trial.

Disclaimer: This is a news analysis based on recent legal reporting. The matter is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.