https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385830 Interrogation safeguards were recognised for a summoned person facing DRI questioning, with counsel permitted at a visible but not audible distance so as to prevent coercive questioning without allowing active participation. The Court treated this limited presence as an appropriate protective measure where earlier directions supported such relief, and it also accepted videography of the proceedings as consistent with that safeguard. The writ petition therefore succeeded only to that limited extent, securing both protected legal presence and video recording during interrogation. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385830 Interrogation safeguards were recognised for a summoned person facing DRI questioning, with counsel permitted at a visible but not audible distance so as to prevent coercive questioning without allowing active participation. The Court treated this limited presence as an appropriate protective measure where earlier directions supported such relief, and it also accepted videography of the proceedings as consistent with that safeguard. The writ petition therefore succeeded only to that limited extent, securing both protected legal presence and video recording during interrogation. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385830