Pankaj Kumar Prajapat S/O Shri Ramkaran Prajapati vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of its previous order in Navratan Singh Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court noted that the issue of the right to legal representation during interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, is no longer res integra. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pool Pandi, which held that there is no constitutional right to have the company of one's choice during questioning, as the purpose of such inquiries would be frustrated. The Court acknowledged that in Birendra Kumar Pandey, a direction was issued on the specific facts of that case, but without granting an absolute right. Crucially, the Court highlighted that the Supreme Court has since issued detailed guidelines in Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Ors. regarding the manner of interrogation, which provide sufficient protection to the person being summoned. Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioners would be entitled to all protections available under the judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini.

Facts

These writ petitions were filed by individuals, including former directors of a private limited company, seeking directions from the High Court. The petitioners sought to have an Advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during their interrogation by the respondents, who are various authorities under the Union of India, including the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Commissioner of Customs/GST. They also sought for interrogations to be video-graphed. The petitions were disposed of in terms of a previous order passed by the Court in a similar case, Navratan Singh Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Key Issues

1. Whether a person summoned for interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, has a right to be represented by an Advocate at visible but not audible distance during such interrogation, in light of Supreme Court judgments? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court, in cases like Birendra Kumar Pandey, allowed the physical presence of a lawyer from a distance during interrogation to prevent coercive action. They argued that this limited relief, as directed by the Supreme Court, had not been considered by this Court in previous decisions and was sought in their case. Respondent's argument: The respondent argued that the law declared by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in Pool Pandi & Ors. holds the field, which does not recognize such a right. They submitted that the direction in Birendra Kumar Pandey was fact-specific and not a declaration of law under Article 141. They further pointed to recent Supreme Court guidelines in Paramvir Singh Saini, which provide sufficient protection, including video recording, and suggested that the petitioner's specific relief might not be granted, but protection as per Paramvir Singh Saini could be considered.