Supreme Court issues notice on PIL seeking guaranteed presence of legal counsel for arrested, summoned individuals

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a PIL seeking right of the presence of legal counsel of an individual being questioned / interrogated by the State / investigation agency / investigating officer to be a non-discretionary, non-discriminatory and unalienable right.

A bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran has issued notice on a plea filed by lawyer Shaffi Mather which seeks reading the relevant statutory provisions viz. Section 41D- of the CrPC and Section 38 of the BNSS along with the applicable provisions under special laws, such as Section 50 of the PMLA, to include the said interpretation.

The petitioner, states that being a lawyer himself, he has personally witnessed the high-handedness of interrogation agencies when dealing with an interrogatee. Stating that the Constitution of India under Article 20(3) provides a fundamental right against self incrimination, Supreme Court has been told this right can be realised wholly and truly only when full and unfettered access to a counsel is allowed to an individual being questioned / interrogated, as provided under Article 22(1) as this is more so significant to the illiterate and the underprivileged who may not even be aware of their constitutional rights including the right against self-incrimination.

The plea also seeks framing of guidelines for the grant of access to one's legal counsel during an enquiry / interrogation by the State, police or other investigation agencies or investigating officers in a manner that furthers the interrogatee's fundamental rights under Articles 20(3), 21, and 22(1) of the Indian Constitution as envisaged and intended by the framers of the constitution.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the petitioner today before the Supreme Court and referred to the 'India : Annual Report on Torture 2019' published by National Campaign Against Torture, which mentions the top 15 trends of torture and impunity in India during 2019.

Filed through AOR Prateek K Chadha, the petition argues that a coercive, piecemeal, access to counsel not only contravenes the right to counsel under Article 22, and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), but also violates the due-process, fair investigation, and fair-trial guarantees inherent ,n Articles 21 and 22, thereby perpetuating custodial abuses by investigating agencies and undermining investigative integrity.

"This practice of disallowing the presence of counsel during enquiry, questioning or interrogation, or only allowing a counsel to be with visible but not audible range of the questioning or interrogation, prevalent across statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, amongst others, perpetuates coercive questioning / interrogation environments, and thereby violates the constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination and due process", court has been told.

Further reliance is placed on comparative jurisprudence from the U.S. Miranda regime and European Convention on Human Rights which underscores the global recognition of unfettered legal access to an individual as a cornerstone of justice.

"These measures are essential to vindicate India's constitutional promise of due process, to prevent custodial violence, to ensure equality and justice at the critical first contact with the criminal justice system and most importantly to uphold the-promise made in this regard by Dr. B R Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, in the Constituent Assembly of India", the plea argues.

Case Title: SHAFFI MATHER vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI and Justice Chandran

Hearing Date: October 15, 2025