Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Lawyers presence in a constitutional claim in some circumstances in our country, also, and, in the context of Art. 20(3), is an assurance of awareness and observance of the right to silence. The Miranda (1966-384 US 436) decision has insisted that if an accused person asks for lawyer's assistance, at the stage of interrogation, it shall be granted before commencing or continuing with the questioning. We think that Art. 20(3) and Art. 22(1) may, in a way, by telescoped by making it prudent for the Police to permit the advocate of the accused, if there be one, to be present at the time he is examined. Over-reaching Art. 20(3) and S. 161(2) will be obviated by this requirement. We do not lay down that the Police must secure the services of a lawyer. That will lead to 'police-station-lawyer's system', an abuse which breeds other vices. But all that we mean is that if an accused person expresses the wish to have his lawyer by his side when his examination goes on, this facility shall not be denied, without being exposed to the serious reproof that involuntary self-criminations secured in secrecy and by coercing the will was the project.