Accused has right to be silent
Context:
Recently, the Supreme Court judge, Justice Ujjal Bhuvan, in his opinion in granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind kejriwal, upheld the right of an accused to remain silent during interrogation.
Relevance:
GS-02 (Indian Polity)
Key highlights:
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, stated that an investigating agency cannot presume guilt or draw adverse inferences if the accused remains silent.
- Justice Bhuyan invoked Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from being compelled to testify against themselves, applying this protection not just in court but also during the pre-trial stage and police interrogation.
- Criticism of Unjustified Arrests:
- Justice Bhuyan distinguished between the power to arrest and the need to arrest, stressing that personal liberty should not be deprived without justification.
- He criticized the attitude of “arrest first and then proceed,” emphasizing that arrests should only be made when necessary and not merely because it’s legally permissible.
Article 20:
- Article 20 offers protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment for an accused person, including citizens, foreigners, and legal entities.
- It includes three main protections:
- No Ex-Post-Facto Law:
- No one can be convicted for an act that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed.
- No higher penalty can be imposed than what was prescribed by law at the time of the offence.
- Applies only to criminal laws, not civil or tax laws.
- No Double Jeopardy: A person cannot be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.
- No Self-Incrimination: No one can be compelled to testify against themselves.
- This protection covers both oral and documentary evidence but doesn’t extend to: Compulsory production of objects and Thumb impressions, signatures, blood samples, or physical examination.
- It applies only to criminal proceedings, not civil cases.
- No Ex-Post-Facto Law:
