Right Against Self-incrimination

Right Against Self-incrimination

News: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a plea by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the excise policy case after a Delhi court on Monday remanded him in CBI custody till March 4. Instruction – Link this article with Fundamental Rights chapter in Lakshmikanth in context with Article 20, 32 and 226 of the Constitution.

Background:
 The Supreme 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.

What is an individual’s 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. The 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?
 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.

What does not violate the right against self-incrimination?
 In the landmark 1961 verdict in The State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad, 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”.
 In 2019, the Supreme Court in its ruling in Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.

What amounts to violation of the right against self-incrimination?
 In Selvi v State of Karnataka, 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.

On what grounds did Supreme court reject Sisodia’s plea?
 The SC refused to intervene in Sisodia’s arrest “at this stage”. He had moved the SC under Article 32, which gives citizens the right to approach the top court when their fundamental rights are violated.
 However, CJI said that Sisodia’s arrest is under the Prevention of Corruption Act and his case does not involve matter of free speech when earlier journalists such as Arnab Goswami and Vinod Dua’s matter were heard by SC in context to Article 32.