No enforceable right to counsel during investigation, as lawyer presence remains subject to investigative discretion.

A person questioned during preliminary investigation has no enforceable right to insist on the presence of counsel unless a statute specifically confers that entitlement. The court relied on Article 20(3) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but held that they do not create an absolute right to lawyer presence at the investigation stage. It also held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act gives a right of audience only before courts, tribunals, or authorities legally entitled to take evidence, not before an investigating officer. The request for counsel's presence was therefore left to the investigator's discretion, and the petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled, as a matter of right, to have their advocate present during questioning in the course of preliminary investigation by the forest authorities.

Analysis: The Court considered the protection under Article 20(3) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the observations in the authorities relied upon regarding consultation with counsel during interrogation, and the need to preserve the confidentiality of investigation until filing of the charge-sheet. It also noted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers a right of audience only in courts, tribunals, or before authorities legally entitled to take evidence, and that an investigating officer is not such a forum. On that basis, the Court held that the presence of a lawyer may be prudent and may reduce later criticism of any statement recorded, but it is not a legally enforceable entitlement at the stage of investigation.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right to insist on the presence of counsel during questioning, and the investigating officer was not bound to permit it.

Final Conclusion: The request for a lawyer's presence during interrogation was left to the discretion of the investigating authority, and the petition seeking a direction to that effect failed.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no absolute right to the presence of counsel during investigation unless the law specifically confers such a right, and the mere desirability of legal assistance does not override the confidentiality of investigation or expand the advocate's statutory right of audience.

---