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.