SC issues notices on plea for lawyer access during police interrogation

The petition sought directives to recognise the presence of a lawyer during questioning as an inalienable and non-discretionary right, calling for framing of guidelines guaranteeing access to the same

Supreme Court
The plea was filed by lawyer Shaffi Mather and was listed before a bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
Rahul Goreja New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Oct 15 2025 | 10:06 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Centre, states, and Union Territories in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to make it a fundamental right for individuals to have their lawyer present during police or investigative agency interrogations, PTI reported.
 
The plea was filed by lawyer Shaffi Mather and was listed before a bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, referred to the India: Annual Report on Torture 2019 by the National Campaign Against Torture, which highlights widespread instances of custodial torture and lack of accountability.
 

Petitioner cites constitutional safeguards

The plea argued that the existing practice, where access to lawyers is either denied or limited to being “visible but not audible”, violates an individual’s fundamental rights and often leads to custodial violence and deaths. It added that laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act permit interrogation without a lawyer or restrict their presence to mere visibility, PTI reported.
 
The counsel further submitted that the presence of a lawyer helps individuals understand whether specific questions are incriminating, thereby preventing coerced or uninformed self-incrimination. 
 

Call for guidelines on lawyer access

The petition sought directives to recognise the presence of a lawyer during questioning as an inalienable and non-discretionary right, and urged the framing of guidelines guaranteeing such access.
 
It relied on constitutional provisions under Articles 20(3) — the right against self-incrimination — Article 21, and Article 22, which grants an arrested person the right to consult a lawyer of their choice.  (With PTI inputs.)
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme CourtprobePoliceFundamental Rightspolice violenceBS Web Reports

First Published: Oct 15 2025 | 9:39 PM IST

Next Story