In which of the following cases it has been held that presence of a lawyer at the time of interrogation cannot be demanded as a matter of right ?

Haryana Judicial Service (Civil Judge) Prelims 2013 Previous Year Question Papers with MCQ Answers

Practice Mode:

30.

In which of the following cases it has been held that presence of a lawyer at the time of interrogation cannot be demanded as a matter of right ?

A: Poolpandi and other v. Superintendent, Central Excise

B: Senior Intelligence Officer v. Jugol Kishore Samra

C: Both (a) and (b)

D: None of the above.

The answer is: C

<< Previous Question

Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is C: Both (a) and (b).

In both these cases, the Supreme Court of India held that the presence of a lawyer at the time of interrogation cannot be demanded as a matter of right by the person being interrogated. The court reasoned that the right to consult a lawyer under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not applicable to the stage of interrogation, and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) is not violated by the mere presence of a police officer during interrogation. The court also observed that allowing a lawyer to be present during interrogation would hamper the investigation and defeat its purpose.

However, the court also clarified that the person being interrogated has the right to remain silent, and the police officer must inform him of this right before interrogation. The court also stated that the person has the right to have a friend or relative informed of his arrest and detention, and the right to be medically examined every 48 hours during his custody. The court further noted that the presence of a lawyer may be permitted at a visible but not audible distance, as per the guidelines issued by the court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.