Indian Polity & Constitution
Context: In a recent episode the Supreme Court refused to hear a plea by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister seeking bail in the excise policy case.
- It is 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.
- This right is based on the Latin maxim that ‘No one is obligated to blame himself’.
Provisions for self-incrimination in the Indian constitution :
- Article 20- grants protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment to an accused person, whether a citizen or foreigner or a legal person like a company or a corporation. It contains three provisions in that direction:
- It contains provisions related to No ex-post-facto law, No double jeopardy, and No self-incrimination.
- No self-incrimination means no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
- The protection against self-incrimination extends to both oral evidence and documentary evidence.
- Exceptions: It does not extend to the compulsory production of material objects, the compulsion to give a thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimens, and compulsory exhibition of the body.
- It extends only to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings or proceedings which are not of criminal nature.
Judicial rulings on self-incrimination :
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.
Selvi v State of Karnataka case, 2010
- In this case the Supreme Court held that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amount to a violation of the right against self-incrimination.
Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh 2019:
- In this case, the Supreme Court broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.
Source: THE INDIAN EXPRESS
Previous Year Questions
Q.1) With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: (2022)
- Mandamus will not lie against a private organization unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
- Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
- Any public-minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.
Which of the statements given above is correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Q.2) With reference to India, consider the following statements: (2021)
- Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such an accused is locked up in a police station, not in jail.
- During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
For a dedicated peer group, Motivation & Quick updates, Join our official telegram channel – https://t.me/IASbabaOfficialAccount
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE to watch Explainer Videos, Strategy Sessions, Toppers Talks & many more…