The Supreme Court on February 28 refused to hear a plea by the then Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the excise policy case after a Delhi court remanded him in CBI custody till March 4.
- The Supreme Court disapproved of the then Deputy CM 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.
- Special CBI judge had granted CBI then Deputy CM’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 is a right against self-incrimination?
- 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. Since the onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the state, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself or share information that might go against him in a trial.
- In The State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), an eleven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court 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”.
- The Supreme Court in its ruling in Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.
- In the Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) case, the Supreme 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. If an accused refuses to give a sample, the court can draw adverse inferences against him under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
(Source: Indian Express)
