Custodial safeguards in customs interrogation permit counsel at visible distance and video-recording where coercion is feared
Where a person summoned for interrogation under customs law demonstrates a reasonable apprehension of coercive treatment, counsel may be permitted at a visible but inaudible distance as a safeguard during questioning. The text also records that interrogation may be video-recorded to protect fairness in the investigative process. These procedural protections are presented as consistent with Supreme Court guidance in analogous matters and are described as conditions under which the investigation may proceed.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to have their advocate present during interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, at a visible distance but beyond hearing range. (ii) Whether the interrogation proceedings were required to be video-recorded.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to have their advocate present during interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, at a visible distance but beyond hearing range.
Analysis: The petitioners asserted a reasonable apprehension of coercion during interrogation, referring to allegations that a business associate had been threatened and beaten during investigation. The Court also noted the direction of the Supreme Court in similar matters permitting presence of counsel during interrogation, subject to the lawyer remaining within visible distance and beyond hearing range. In view of the apprehension pleaded and the judicial guidance relied upon, the Court found it appropriate to extend the safeguard sought.
Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to the presence of an advocate during interrogation, at a visible but not audible distance.
Issue (ii): Whether the interrogation proceedings were required to be video-recorded.
Analysis: The Court accepted the request for an additional procedural safeguard and relied upon the Supreme Court's directions in analogous proceedings to ensure fairness in the investigation process. The recording of proceedings was treated as a protective measure consistent with the relief granted for regulated interrogation.
Conclusion: The interrogation proceedings were directed to be video-recorded.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the investigation was permitted to proceed only with the safeguards of counsel's presence at a visible distance and video-recording of the interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a person summoned for interrogation under customs law demonstrates a reasonable apprehension of coercive treatment, the Court may direct the presence of counsel at a visible but inaudible distance and order additional safeguards to ensure fairness in the investigative process.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
