CLAT PG Current Affairs — 28 July 2026

The Supreme Court on July 27, 2026, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (2026 LiveLaw SC 722), interpreted Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that while an arrested person has a right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, the advocate cannot remain continuously present throughout the entire interrogation session.

Section 38 of the BNSS is the statutory successor to the right recognised under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. The BNSS translated this constitutional guarantee into a specific procedural right during police interrogation. The crucial question this case addressed was: does 'meet' mean a brief consultation or a continuous presence?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court had imposed a condition requiring two advocates to be nominated at the prison, with at least one present at any given point during interrogation. The State challenged this as obstructing custodial investigation — a legitimate law enforcement concern, since interrogation effectiveness depends on privacy and directness.

The Supreme Court struck a careful balance. It held that 'meet' under Section 38 implies access and consultation rights, not a right to have counsel audibly or visually supervising the entire interrogation. However, the Court did not entirely exclude the advocate — it modified the High Court's condition to allow the advocate to remain within the interrogation site where they can see the accused, but not necessarily hear or intervene.

This distinction matters enormously for CLAT PG: it separates the right to consult (constitutionally rooted) from the right to supervise interrogation (not contemplated by statute). The judgment also links to S.187(2) BNSS, which the Court noted allows police custody beyond the first 15 days — expanding the interrogation window itself.

The Supreme Court on July 27, 2026, set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court condition barring police custody extension beyond the first fifteen days of remand. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that Section 187(2) BNSS, unlike erstwhile Section 167 CrPC, allows police custody in parts, aggregating not more than fifteen days, within the first forty or sixty days of total permissible detention. The case arose from alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna in Vijayawada.

This judgment marks a significant interpretive shift in remand law under India's new criminal procedure framework. Under the old Section 167 CrPC, police custody of an accused was strictly confined to the first fifteen days of remand—once that window closed, further police custody was unavailable regardless of investigation needs. This created rigidity: if fresh leads emerged on day 20, investigators had lost their custodial interrogation window permanently.

Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS deliberately enlarges this window. Police custody—aggregating not more than fifteen days—can now be sought in parts throughout the first forty days (for offences punishable with imprisonment up to ten years) or sixty days (for more serious offences) of the total permissible detention period. This is a legislative policy choice to empower investigators when fresh disclosures, forensic leads, or geographic factors make later custodial interrogation necessary.

The Court also clarified ancillary issues: advocate presence throughout interrogation violates Section 38 BNSS (which only guarantees the right to consult, not continuous presence); interrogation need not be confined to Central Prison; and videography, while retained as a safeguard, need not cover transit phases. Courts and Magistrates exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot impose conditions that effectively nullify the statutory window Parliament created. For CLAT PG aspirants, this judgment sits at the intersection of statutory interpretation, legislative intent, and fundamental rights balancing—core competencies the exam tests through passage-based MCQs.