Context: Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) Stated that all accused have a ‘Right to silence’ and investigators cannot force them to speak up or admit guilt as emphasising that the Constitution accords every person a right against self-incrimination.

Supreme Court’s observations on the Right to Silence

• The Constitution grants the right to remain silent: The court emphasised that the Constitution of India gives individuals the right against self-incrimination, stating that no one can be forced to be a witness against themselves.

• Cooperation does not mean confession: The court clarified that cooperation with an investigation should not be seen as an admission of guilt. 

• Remaining silent cannot be considered non-cooperation, as individuals have the right to choose not to speak.

• Prosecution’s burden of proof: It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

• Refusing confession doesn’t limit freedom: The court stated that an accused person cannot be deprived of their freedom solely because they have not admitted to the alleged crimes. 

About Right against self-incrimination

• Right to remain silent has been taken from Miranda Rights and rights under the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution.

• According to the Indian Constitution Article 20(3) states, “No one can be compelled to be a witness against himself”.

• In India, the right against self-incrimination is limited only to criminal cases.

• In the US, it is available both as a civil and criminal remedy.

• The provision gives an accused the right against self-incrimination, a fundamental canon of law.

• Under criminal law jurisprudence, it is considered the duty of the prosecution to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Until proven otherwise, the accused remains innocent except when tried under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, or POCSO, (Amendment) Bill, 2019.

• An accused’s decision to remain silent can be construed as a negative inference in certain circumstances but it cannot absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove the guilt of that person.

About Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution

• Article 20(3) states that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This provision consists of the following three components

• It is a right pertaining to a person accused of an offense.

• It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness.

• It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence against himself.

Right against self-incrimination does not apply in

• Production of material objects like documents, weapons, etc.

• Providing thumb impressions, signatures, and blood specimens.

Important judgements regarding Right against 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. 

• Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2019): The Supreme Court in its ruling broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.

• Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010): The Supreme Court held that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amount to violation of the right against self-incrimination.