Supreme Court of India: Courts Should Not Suggest Accused Interrogation

• The Supreme Court ruled that courts should not suggest the interrogation of accused persons, leaving such decisions to investigating agencies.
• This directive came while setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that deemed custodial interrogation "imperative" for all suspects in a service record tampering case.
• The case involved a school principal and governing body president accused of altering a date of birth for unlawful gain, leading to an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and AS Chandurkar's bench stated that the High Court's "sweeping observation" jeopardized the rights of other suspects.
• The Supreme Court granted relief to the accused, making their anticipatory bail absolute, but mandated their continued cooperation with the investigation.

This crucial aspect, the Court emphasized, should be left entirely to the discretion and expertise of the investigating agency responsible for the case.

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a significant directive, asserting that judicial bodies should refrain from dictating the interrogation methods or necessity for accused individuals. Instead, the apex court clarified that such decisions fall squarely within the purview of the investigating agency. This pronouncement came while the Court was reviewing an appeal against an order from the Gujarat High Court, which had mandated the custodial interrogation of all suspects in a case involving alleged tampering with service records.

The case involved a husband and wife, identified as the Principal of Shri Secondary School, Vekaria, and the President of its governing body, respectively. They faced accusations of altering the husband's service record to change his date of birth from June 19, 1964, to June 19, 1965. This alleged alteration was believed to have unlawfully extended his service period, leading to financial gain at the public exchequer's expense. An First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the Visavadar Police Station in District Junagarh, citing various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2)(a). After their application for anticipatory bail was denied by the High Court, the couple sought recourse from the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and AS Chandurkar critically examined the Gujarat High Court's order, particularly paragraph 11, which stated that "custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth." The Supreme Court found this observation to be an overreach of judicial authority. Justice Bhuyan, leading the bench, articulated that it is not appropriate for a High Court to suggest or mandate any specific form of interrogation for an accused person. This crucial aspect, the Court emphasized, should be left entirely to the discretion and expertise of the investigating agency responsible for the case.

The Supreme Court highlighted that such "sweeping observations" made by the High Court, declaring custodial interrogation as "imperative" for not just the applicants but all other suspects, effectively jeopardized the rights of these other individuals who had not yet been fully implicated or whose interrogation status was still under review by the police. The apex court underscored the importance of judicial restraint, advising High Courts to avoid making unnecessary remarks that could prejudge investigative necessities or infringe upon the procedural autonomy of law enforcement.

The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence: the clear demarcation between the judiciary's role in adjudicating and the executive's function in investigating. By setting aside the Gujarat High Court's order dated June 16, 2026, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the High Court's directive regarding mandatory custodial interrogation. The relief sought by the accused couple in the case, titled MITESHGIRI @ MULRAJGIRI SEVAGIRI GOSWAMI & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT, was granted, making their anticipatory bail absolute. However, this relief came with a clear condition: the accused are required to continue cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation. This decision serves as a vital precedent, guiding lower courts on the boundaries of their intervention in the investigative process and upholding the discretion of law enforcement agencies in determining the necessity and methods of interrogation.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet