Senior Intelligence Officer v. Jugal Kishore Samra
Interrogation rights under NDPS: no absolute right to lawyer-in-room; Article 20(3) for accused only; limited, sight-only safeguard in rare cases.
senior-intelligence-officer-v-jugal-kishore-samra
The Supreme Court held that a person summoned for interrogation has no absolute right to have a lawyer sit in during questioning. Article 22(1) allows consultation, not continuous presence. Article 20(3) protects only an accused, not a mere witness/summoned person.
Courts may add limited safeguards in exceptional cases—e.g., health risk or credible coercion—by allowing counsel to stay within sight but out of hearing, so investigation stays effective and fair.
- Is a person entitled to lawyer’s presence during interrogation?
- Could the respondent, not formally accused, invoke Article 20(3)?
- Was the High Court right to direct interrogation only in the presence of an advocate?
- Art. 20(3): Privilege against self-incrimination applies to an accused facing compulsion.
- Art. 22(1): Right to consult a lawyer; not a right to have counsel sit in throughout interrogation.
- Poolpandi line of cases: Persons summoned under NDPS/Customs/FERA have no right to lawyer’s presence during questioning.
- Judicial discretion: In rare, justified situations, court may permit presence within sight, out of hearing to balance fairness and efficacy.
DRI Raid DRI found shortage of DPP HCL at Hy-Gro; suppliers linked stock to respondent’s firm.
Airport Seizure Five drums of DPP HCL seized; case under NDPS Act; Section 67 statements recorded; summons issued.
Health & Coercion Claims Respondent alleged torture; suffered chest pain and hospitalisation; later obtained anticipatory bail.
Sessions & High Court Sessions directed interrogation only in presence of advocate; High Court upheld; SLP filed.
Supreme Court Set aside those orders; allowed sight-only safeguard, not constant participation.
Appellant (DRI)
- No statutory/constitutional right to lawyer-in-room during NDPS interrogation.
- Such presence risks coached answers and slows investigation.
- Art. 20(3) inapplicable: respondent not an accused at that stage.
Respondent
- Alleged coercion and medical risk; sought protection.
- Relied on broad readings of Nandini Satpathy and D.K. Basu.
- Requested advocate and cardiologist presence during questioning.
- No absolute right to have a lawyer present during interrogation; consultation right remains.
- Art. 20(3) applies to an accused, not a summoned witness at inquiry stage.
- High Court’s blanket order was unsustainable; replaced with within-sight, out-of-hearing safeguard due to health/coercion allegations.
- Investigation must be effective and un-influenced; fairness ensured through measured safeguards.
Consult, not accompany. Article 22(1) guarantees consultation with counsel; it does not mandate counsel’s presence throughout interrogation. Article 20(3) shields only an accused. Courts may allow sight-only presence when fairness demands it.
- Clarifies limits of counsel’s role at investigation stage.
- Preserves investigative efficacy while allowing measured safeguards.
- Defines when Article 20(3) can be invoked.
- No absolute right to lawyer-in-room.
- Art. 22(1) = consult, not accompany.
- Art. 20(3) = accused only.
- Exceptional cases → sight-only presence.
- NDPS/Customs inquiries follow Poolpandi.
- Fairness and efficacy must both be served.
- Consult your lawyer (not sit-in).
- Conduct interrogation without influence.
- Safeguard when health/coercion is shown (within sight, out of hearing).
Issue
Is counsel’s presence required during interrogation and can Article 20(3) be claimed by a summoned person?
Rule
Art. 22(1): consult but no sit-in; Art. 20(3): protects an accused; Poolpandi: no right to lawyer’s presence in NDPS/Customs/FERA inquiries.
Application
Respondent was summoned, not accused; blanket lawyer-presence would hamper probe; limited safeguard fits alleged health/coercion context.
Conclusion
No absolute right to lawyer-in-room; Article 20(3) inapplicable; sight-only safeguard permitted; HC/Sessions orders modified.
- Article 20(3)
- Right against self-incrimination available to an accused facing compulsion.
- Article 22(1)
- Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice.
- Sight-Only Presence
- Counsel present within view but out of hearing to prevent coaching while ensuring fairness.
Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise
No lawyer-in-roomHeld that persons summoned under fiscal/statutory laws have no right to counsel’s presence during questioning.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
Consultation rightRecognised consultation with counsel but not an absolute sit-in right during interrogation.
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.
Arrest safeguardsAllows the arrestee to meet a lawyer during interrogation, not continuously.
- CASE_TITLE
- Senior Intelligence Officer v. Jugal Kishore Samra
- PRIMARY_KEYWORDS
- lawyer during interrogation, Article 20(3), Article 22(1)
- SECONDARY_KEYWORDS
- NDPS summons, Section 67, D.K. Basu, Poolpandi
- PUBLISH_DATE
- 2025-11-02
- AUTHOR_NAME
- Gulzar Hashmi
- LOCATION
- India
- SLUG
- senior-intelligence-officer-v-jugal-kishore-samra
- CITATION
- 2011 (12) SCC 362
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now