TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person summoned for interrogation and on anticipatory bail is entitled, as of right, to have his advocate present during interrogation, and whether the direction permitting interrogation only in the presence of counsel was sustainable.
Analysis: The Court contrasted the broader observations in Nandini Satpathy with the later three-judge decision in Poolpandi, and treated Poolpandi as controlling on the question whether a person who is not in custody can insist on the presence of a lawyer during interrogation. The Court held that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination does not confer an absolute right to counsel's presence for a person merely summoned for questioning, and the distinction sought to be drawn between the NDPS Act and the customs and foreign exchange statutes was rejected. At the same time, having regard to the respondent's medical condition and the special facts alleged, and drawing support from the preventive safeguards indicated in D.K. Basu, the Court considered it appropriate to modify the earlier direction by allowing the interrogation to be watched from a distance or behind a glass partition, without consultation during questioning.
Conclusion: The direction that interrogation must take place only in the presence of the respondent's advocate was set aside, and it was replaced by a limited visual presence safeguard.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
