Right Against Self-Incrimination

Why in news?

• Earlier, a special CBI judge had granted CBI Sisodia’s custody on the grounds that he had failed to provide satisfactory answers during investigation.
• The court had rejected Sisodia’s arguments that he had a right against self-incrimination.

What’s in today’s article?

• Right Against Self-Incrimination

What is an individual’s right against self-incrimination?

• Background:
  • The right against self-incrimination has its origins in Roman law, and evolved as a distinct right in the English jurisprudence.
  • The Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution says “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”
• About:
  • A declaration or an act that occurs during an investigation where a person or witness incriminates themselves either explicitly or implicitly is known as self-incrimination.
  • In simpler words, it is the act of implicating or exposing one’s own self to criminal prosecution.
  • This right is based on the Latin maxim that ‘No one is obligated to blame himself’.
• Right against Self-incrimination in India
• Article 20(3) in Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution says, “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”.
• The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to remain silent in an interrogation essentially flow from this constitutionally guaranteed right against self-incrimination.
• This right also ensures that police cannot coerce anyone to confess to a crime, and obtain a conviction based on that confession.

How does the right against self-incrimination apply in criminal cases?

• The onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the state.
• Hence, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself or share information that might go against him in a trial.
• To be a witness is different from furnishing evidence
  • In The State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad case, SC ruled that obtaining photographs, fingerprints, signatures, and thumb impressions would not violate the right against self-incrimination of an accused.
  • The court distinguished “to be a witness” from “furnishing evidence”.
  • In 2019, SC ruling in Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples.
    • SC held that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.
• Narcoanalysis test and collection of DNA
• In Selvi v State of Karnataka, the apex court held that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amount to violation of the right against self-incrimination.
• However, obtaining a DNA sample from the accused is permitted.

News Summary: Right Against Self-Incrimination

• Recently, the CBI told the special court that it would need custody of the Delhi Deputy CM since he was evasive during the interrogation.
• This was opposed by the accused on the ground that Indian Constitution granted him the right against self-incrimination. Hence, this cannot be a ground for remand.
• In the order granting remand, judge of the special court sought to differentiate between giving legitimate answers and protecting the right against self-incrimination.
• The judge did not elaborate on what would be counted as “legitimate” answers.

On what grounds did the SC refused to hear Sisodia’s plea?

• The SC refused to hear a plea by Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the excise policy case after a Delhi court remanded him in CBI custody till March 4.
• The apex court disapproved of Sisodia approaching it directly under Article 32 of the Constitution when the remedy of moving the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC was available to him.
  • Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’.
  • This article affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III (Fundamental Right) of the Constitution.
• SC was of the view that the present case pertains to the Prevention of Corruption Ac It does not involve the infringement of Fundamental Right.
• Hence, the remedy of moving the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC was available to the accused and the accused can not approach SC directly under Article 32.
  • Section 482 CrPC - No provision in the CrPC can limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.