Nisar Pallathukadavil Aliyar vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition to the limited extent prayed for in prayer clause (b). The Court found that while the Supreme Court's orders in other cases cited by the DRI dealt with pre-arrest protection, they did not address the specific issue of the presence of an advocate during interrogation. The Court was bound by the Supreme Court's judgments and orders. Specifically, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's directions in Vijay Sajnani & Anr. Vs. Union of India, which permitted an advocate to be present within visible distance but beyond hearing range during interrogation. The Court also directed that the proceedings be video-graphed, referencing the Supreme Court's order in Rajinder Arora & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an individual is summoned for interrogation, and they apprehend coercive methods, the Supreme Court's precedent in Vijay Sajnani allows for the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and proceedings should be video-graphed.

Facts

The petitioner, Nisar Pallathukadavil Aliyar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. Initially, he sought relief under prayer clause (a), which he later withdrew. The remaining relief sought under prayer clause (b) was for permission to have an advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during his interrogation by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Sajnani and Anr. Versus Union of India. The DRI opposed this, citing a Telangana High Court decision upheld by the Supreme Court in similar matters concerning pre-arrest protection. The Court noted that the cited Supreme Court orders primarily dealt with pre-arrest protection, not the presence of an advocate during interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have an advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during his interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, as per the Supreme Court's directions in Vijay Sajnani and Anr. Versus Union of India (WP(Crl.) No.29 of 2012). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court in Vijay Sajnani had granted similar relief, allowing an advocate to be present within visible distance but beyond hearing range during interrogation to ensure no coercive methods were used. They sought limited protection consistent with this precedent. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents (Union of India and DRI) opposed the relief, referring to a Telangana High Court decision in a similar matter, which was subsequently not interfered with by the Supreme Court. They also cited another Supreme Court order in SLP (Cri) No. 4322 – 4324 of 2019 concerning pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the Supreme Court had directed High Courts to consider the Telangana High Court's contrary view in future pre-arrest bail requests. The respondents also relied on a Rajasthan High Court judgment in Bhag Singh V/s. Union of India, which was based on specific facts where apprehension of torture was found unjustified.