Case name: Birendra Kumar Pandey and Another v. Union of India and Another
Citation:
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2012, Supreme Court of India
Date of
final order: 8 June 2023
Bench /
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J. (vacation bench at final
disposal); interim proceedings earlier before Altamas Kabir, J. and J.
Chelameswar, J.
Facts
The
petitioners were issued summons under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, for
interrogation by customs authorities in connection with an investigation. They
feared coercive methods and possible extortion of confessions during
questioning, and therefore filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a
direction that their interrogation and recording of statements under section
108 be conducted in the presence of their advocate, at a visible but beyond‑audibility
distance. On 16 April 2012, the Supreme Court, by an interim order, granted
this protective arrangement during interrogation. The petition later came up
for final disposal in 2023.
Judgment / Holding
The Court
noted that the interim order of 16 April 2012 had already granted the precise
relief sought in the writ petition, namely, presence of the petitioners’
advocate during interrogation within sight but beyond hearing range and without
participation in questioning. Since nothing more survived for adjudication, the
writ petition was disposed of in terms of the signed order, without granting
any wider declaration of right beyond the specific protection already afforded.
Observations and Obiter dicta
- While considering the interim relief, the
Court distinguished Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise, where
presence of counsel “during” interrogation as an active participant was
refused, from a limited safeguard permitting counsel to sit at a visible
but non‑audible distance to prevent coercion.
- Relying on Jugal Kishore Samra and D.K.
Basu directions, the Court treated such limited presence of counsel as a
reasonable protective measure in appropriate cases, clarifying that the
lawyer has no role in the interrogation itself and cannot consult the
person during questioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment