No constitutional right under Article 21 to insist on lawyer presence during questioning under Customs Act, 1962 and FERA

SC held that persons questioned under the Customs Act, 1962 and FERA, 1973 have no constitutional right under Article 21 to insist on the presence of a lawyer during departmental interrogation. Allowing counsel to accompany a suspect would frustrate investigatory objectives and could enable non-cooperation, so refusal of a lawyer is permissible when authorities reasonably dissociate the person from potentially obstructive company. The Court allowed the appeal against the High Court's direction permitting lawyer-presence and dismissed the other appeals, awarding costs to the Union.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the presence of lawyers during interrogation under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination.
3. Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution regarding protection of life and personal liberty.
4. Distinction between an accused in a criminal case and a person called for interrogation under the Customs Act and FERA.
5. Extension of the period of limitation for taking certain steps under the statutes due to the pendency of the cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to the Presence of Lawyers During Interrogation:
The primary issue was whether individuals being interrogated under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, are entitled to the presence of their lawyers. The Delhi High Court had allowed such presence, while the Madras High Court had taken the opposite view. The Supreme Court, referencing the absence of statutory provisions prohibiting the presence of counsel, considered whether denying such a request would violate constitutional protections.

2. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that denying the presence of a lawyer during interrogation would violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. They relied on the observations in Nandini Satpathy v. Dani, suggesting that this protection should extend to potential accused persons. However, the Supreme Court, citing Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal and Illias v. Collector of Customs, held that Article 20(3) applies only to individuals formally accused of an offense and not to those merely under investigation.

3. Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution:
The appellants also contended that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, entitles individuals to the presence of a lawyer during interrogation to prevent mental distress. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the purpose of the inquiry under the Customs Act and similar statutes would be frustrated if individuals could insist on the presence of counsel. The Court held that applying the "just, fair, and reasonable test," there was no merit in the appellants' position.

4. Distinction Between an Accused and a Person Called for Interrogation:
The Court distinguished between an accused in a criminal case and a person called for interrogation under the Customs Act and FERA. It reiterated that individuals under investigation are not accused within the meaning of Article 20(3) and thus do not have the same rights. The Court cited the Constitution Bench decision in Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah v. D. K. Guha to support this distinction.

5. Extension of the Period of Limitation:
The Court acknowledged the need to extend the period of limitation for taking certain steps under the statutes due to the pendency of the cases. It directed that the entire period during which the cases were pending in courts should be excluded when computing the period under Section 110 of the Customs Act and other relevant provisions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986, overturning the Delhi High Court's decision that permitted the presence of lawyers during interrogation. The other cases were dismissed, affirming the view that individuals under investigation are not entitled to the presence of counsel. The Court also extended the period of limitation for the concerned departments due to the pendency of the cases.

---