Right to counsel during competition investigations upheld where evidence is recorded and no express bar exists.

A summoned person may be accompanied by an advocate during investigation before the Director General under the Competition Act, 2002, because Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 extends to proceedings before a person legally authorised to record evidence. The Competition Act and the 2009 Regulations contain no express bar on counsel at the investigation stage, and the express recognition of legal representation before the Commission under Section 35 does not imply exclusion before the Director General. The investigating authority may regulate counsel's presence to prevent interference with the inquiry, but it cannot deny the right altogether.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person summoned by the Director General of the Competition Commission of India for investigation and recording of evidence has a right to be accompanied by an advocate, and whether such right is excluded by the Competition Act, 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009.

Analysis: Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers a general right of practice on advocates before persons legally authorised to take evidence, and the Director General, acting under Section 36(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 read with the relevant Regulations, is empowered to record evidence. The Court held that this position brings the Director General within the ambit of Section 30. It further held that the Competition Act and the Regulations contain no express prohibition against advocate-assisted appearance at the investigation stage. The fact that Section 35 expressly recognises legal representation before the Commission did not justify reading an implied exclusion against representation before the Director General. Given the wide investigative powers and the evidentiary significance of statements recorded during investigation, the right to be accompanied by counsel could not be denied, though the investigating authority may regulate the manner of such presence to avoid interference with the investigation.

Conclusion: The summoned person is entitled to be accompanied by an advocate during investigation before the Director General, and the appeal fails on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Single Judge's direction was rejected, while permitting the Director General to regulate counsel's presence so that the investigation is not impeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory bar, an advocate's right to appear before a person legally authorised to take evidence extends to investigation before the Director General under the Competition Act, 2002, and a summoned person may be accompanied by counsel during such evidentiary proceedings.

---