DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IN CASES OF SELF-INCRIMINATION IN INDIA- (Blog)


Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India resources 3 components-:

1.      Right pertaining to use of an offence

2.      Shield against force to be a witness

3.      Defence for the pressure generated leading to Self-Incrimination

The topic was very sensitive and therefore we have come across multiple wearing opinion by the supreme court;

An Honourable Bench of 11 judges in the case of State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad [1] was constituted for resolving this issue whether Article 20(3) is violated when the accused is asked for his signature, or the impression of his palms and fingers. The answer relied on the interpretation of the words “to be a witness” in Article 20(3). Asper the Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court ruled that Article 20(3) is not violated in any of the above situations. Self-incrimination meant conveying information for one’s own self and not like of a witness where the testimony is given for any third party. In the mean to bring evidence within the inhibition of Article 20(3), it must be proved that the person was accused at the time of making the statement and he was compelled to do so. The mere asking by a police officer investigating a crime against a certain individual to do a certain thing is not compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3).

In Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) [2], Iyer J advocated an expansive interpretation of the phrase 'compelled testimony'. According to him, evidence procured "not merely by physical threats or violence" but also "by psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring interrogative prolixity, over-bearing and intimidatory methods, and the like". The admissibility of scientific techniques such as narco-analysis tests, brain mapping test, etc. for improving the investigation has been a matter of debate about whether these tests violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). In Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the mental state of an individual comes under the ambit of ‘Right to Privacy’. Formerly it was observed that the authority of the State to compel an individual to expose the parts of his life which he wishes to keep undisclosed is ultra vires as it is in contravention of the rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) and 21.

This issue was brought before the Supreme Court in the case of Selvin v. State of Karnataka[3], where the Court found that it is a requisite compulsion to force an individual to undergo narco-analysis test and brain-mapping. The answers during these tests aren’t consciously and voluntarily given, accused is unable to decide whether or not to answer a question, hence it amounts to testimonial compulsion and attracts protection under Article 20(3). The Court stated that narco-analysis test is an inhuman treatment which violates the rights of an individual and hence it cannot be permitted against the will of an individual except in cases where it is obligatorily required.



[1] AIR 1961 SC 1808

[2] AIR 1978 SC1025

[3] AIR 2010 SC 1074


- Rajat Nischal
Symbiosis Law School.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MARITAL RAPES IN INDIA: AN UGLY REALITY- (Blog)

CYBER CRIME : A NEW BREED OF CRIMINAL- (Article)

DIGITAL HEALTHCARE IN CORONA TIMES- (Blog)