The Supreme Court of India on Monday, 27 July ruled that an accused person does not hold an unqualified right to have a lawyer physically present throughout police interrogation, clarifying that Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) guarantees only the right to meet an advocate during questioning — not the advocate's uninterrupted presence at every moment. The ruling came in an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against conditions imposed by a trial court and partly upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a custodial death case involving a suspended police inspector.

What the Supreme Court Ruled

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that a plain reading of Section 38 of the BNSS does not contemplate 'the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session.' The bench modified several conditions the lower courts had imposed while granting police custody of the accused.

The court directed that the accused's lawyer may remain at a location from where the accused is visible during interrogation, but cannot be permitted to intervene in the investigation 'at any cost.' The bench described some of the earlier safeguards as having grown impractical and as hampering effective investigation.

The Custodial Death Case in Context

The case centres on a suspended police inspector accused in a custodial death where the victim's body remains untraced and key recoveries are yet to be made. The Andhra Pradesh government had argued before the apex court that the restrictions imposed by lower courts rendered effective custodial interrogation virtually impossible, a concern the Supreme Court described as 'realistic and justified.'

The bench also struck down the condition confining the entire custodial interrogation to the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram, holding that such a restriction was 'neither justified nor sustainable' given the nature of the investigation.

CCTV and Videography Safeguards Retained

While modifying several conditions, the court retained the requirement of CCTV coverage and audio-visual recording of interrogation sessions, noting that such safeguards protect the accused against coercion and simultaneously shield the investigating agency from unfounded allegations.

However, it held that mandating uninterrupted videography of every movement of the accused during transit over long distances was 'unworkable in practice,' citing logistical constraints including signal loss, battery limitations, and security considerations.

Constitutional Safeguards Remain Intact

The bench was careful to affirm that constitutional protections against coercion, assault, or third-degree methods are inherent under Article 21 of the Constitution and remain binding on the investigating agency regardless of specific judicial directions. The ruling thus draws a distinction between the right to legal access and the operational conduct of interrogation.

Notably, this interpretation of the BNSS — which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — carries significant precedential weight as courts and police agencies across India continue to navigate the contours of the new criminal procedure law. The judgment is expected to influence how magistrates frame custody conditions in sensitive cases going forward.