Right To Silence

Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) Stated that all accused have a ‘Right to silence’ and investigators cannot force them to speak up or admit guilt as emphasising that the Constitution accords every person a right against self-incrimination.

Supreme Court’s observations on the Right to Silence:

• The Constitution grants the right to remain silent: The court emphasised that the Constitution of India gives individuals the right against self-incrimination, stating that no one can be forced to be a witness against themselves.
• Cooperation does not mean confession: The court clarified that cooperation with an investigation should not be seen as an admission of guilt. 
  • Remaining silent cannot be considered non-cooperation, as individuals have the right to choose not to speak.
• Prosecution’s burden of proof: It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Refusing confession doesn’t limit freedom: The court stated that an accused person cannot be deprived of their freedom solely because they have not admitted to the alleged crimes. 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 20: It grants protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment to an accused person, whether citizen or foreigner or legal person like a company or a corporation. It contains three provisions in that direction:
  • No ex-post-facto law, No double jeopardy, No self-incrimination.
  • No self-incrimination: No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• Article 20(3): It states that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 
  • The protection of this clause is limited only to criminal proceedings. Therefore, under civil proceedings, a person cannot refuse to answer a question using the defence of Article 20(3).

Supreme Court Rulings:

• The State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): The Supreme Court ruled that obtaining photographs, fingerprints, signatures, and thumb impressions would not violate the right against self-incrimination of an accused. 
• Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2019): The Supreme Court in its ruling broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.
• Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010): The Supreme Court held that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amount to violation of the right against self-incrimination.

News Source: The Hindustan Times

DOWNLOAD PDF