Self Incrimination
Present circumstances:
- Manish Sisodia was recently denied bail in the excise policy case by the Supreme Court after a Delhi court ordered him to remain in CBI custody until March 4.
- The Supreme Court rejected Sisodia’s direct approach to it under Article 32 of the Constitution while he had the option of approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Sisodia was placed under arrest by special CBI judge M K Nagpal because he “failed to offer sufficient replies” during the investigation. The court had rejected Sisodia’s attempts to exercise his right to self-incrimination.
What does a person’s right to be silent mean exactly?
- The privilege against self-incrimination has its roots in Roman law but was subsequently recognised by English law as a distinct right.
- The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no one may be forced to testify against himself in a criminal proceeding without getting due process of law. The term “taking/pleading the Fifth” refers to this option.
- According to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, “No person accused of any offence will be required to be a witness against himself.”
- The right to be believed innocent unless proven guilty and the right to remain silent during an interrogation are both essentially supported by this constitutionally protected protection against self-incrimination.
- Additionally, this right guarantees that no one can be forced by the police to confess to a crime and be convicted as a result of such confession.
What circumstances fall within the courtroom’s privilege from self-incrimination?
- As it is the burden of the state to establish the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, a person cannot be forced to testify against himself or provide information that could be used against him in court.
- An eleven-judge Supreme Court bench ruled in the well-known 1961 case The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad that taking a suspect’s picture, fingerprint, signature, and thumbprint would not violate their right to remain quiet. The difference between offering testimony and offering evidence was noted by the court.
- The Supreme Court broadened the definition of handwriting samples to include voice samples in its ruling in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh in 2019 and claimed that doing so would not violate the privilege against self-incrimination.
- In Selvi v. State of Karnataka earlier that year, the Supreme Court decided that conducting a narcoanalysis test without the accused’s consent would violate their Fifth Amendment privilege against being forced to testify against themselves.
- Yet, it is permitted to obtain a DNA sample from the defendant. If the accused refuses to offer a sample, the court may draw conclusions that are unfavourable to him in accordance with Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
What happened in the Manish Sisodia case?
- The CBI informed the special court that it would need custody of the prisoner because he behaved evasively throughout the interrogation.
- Dayan Krishnan, a senior attorney who defended Sisodia, said there cannot be a reason for the plea for remand: “Their argument is that I, Sisodia, did not respond as they had intended. I’ll go into detail as to why it doesn’t warrant remand. He declared that the judge’s approval of remand for self-incrimination would be a “travesty.”
What was the rationale given by the court?
- In his decision granting remand, Judge Nagpal made an effort to distinguish between “offering legitimate replies” and asserting the privilege against self-incrimination. The judge did not elaborate on what would constitute “legitimate” answers.
- It is true that he cannot be expected to make self-incriminating statements, but the order requires that he give some acceptable answers to the questions the IO is asking him in order to uphold justice and conduct a fair inquiry.
- According to the court’s reasoned judgement, this can only be accomplished during the accused’s questioning while he is being held in custody. A proper and fair investigation necessitates that some true and valid answers to the questions being presented to him regarding the same be found. According to the court, “several of his subordinates were found to have exposed certain information that can be construed as incriminating against him and some documentary evidence against him has also already surfaced.”
What grounds did the SC cite to reject Sisodia’s plea?
- The SC decided not to become engaged in Sisodia’s detention at this point. He had petitioned the SC in accordance with Article 32, which allows people to do so when their fundamental rights are violated.
- No provision of 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, to prevent abuse of any Court’s process, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice,” as stated in Section 482 CrPC. A bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud instructed Sisodia to “avail alternate remedies.”
Conclusion:
- Therefore. A person has a fundamental right against self-incrimination, as stated in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. This right, however, cannot be used to keep from public view anything that is required for a full investigation.
