This article has been written by Kumari Shalini, a student studying B.A. LL. B from Lloyd Law College, Gr. Noida. The author is a 3rd -year law student.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this essay is to comprehend the reach of the privilege to remain silent in criminal trials in India. This country frequently sees incidents where the accused are coerced in order to obtain evidence. The number of cases of forced testimony and incarceration abuse would have been higher had the Constitution’s framers not included the protection against self-incrimination. Although people are protected against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the use of physical, psychological, and emotional coercion on detainees by inquiry officials has had a negative impact on the effectiveness of the justice delivery system. If given to the accused in an appropriate manner, the right to silence can aid in reducing instances of forced testimony. Under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, of 1988, the right to silence began to be infringed upon when terrorism operations were at their peak in Ireland. In all criminal and civil matters where an accused has a right to keep silent, the Court of England accepts this right and applies it.
Article 20(3) – “No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
This provision is based on the legal maxim of “nemo tenetur prodere accusare seipsum” which means no one is obliged to be the witness against himself. A person being prosecuted may make a statement that can be used against him or her. However, the accused should be informed that he is under no need to make a statement against himself and that if he does, it may be used against him before he does. As a result, no one can be forced to commit suicide. As a result, an admission from the accused cannot be accepted as evidence unless it was made voluntarily and of his own free choice. The privilege allows for the preservation of personal privacy in the administration of the law.
The court should disregard any statement that was gained through the use of force, whether physical or otherwise. Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution both grant citizens of India the freedom to remain silent or resist being forced to testify against themselves. According to Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, an accused person is required to provide truthful answers to all questions posed by the authorities, excluding those that could result in a fine or other sanctions.
Right to remain silent in India
According to Part III of the Indian Constitution, the right to remain silent is vital in India. The Indian Constitution’s Article 20 guarantees a fair trial and a person’s lawful arrest. The Indian Constitution’s Article 20(3) guarantees the right to silence. In India, the prohibition on self-incrimination protects those who are accused of crimes from being forced to testify against themselves. Until an accused person is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, the foundational principles of self-incrimination—a fair trial and silence—do not equate to the accused person’s conviction. The Indian Constitution’s founding fathers incorporated the concept of self-incrimination in order to safeguard the rights of suspects and witnesses in court.
An accused person in India enjoys a variety of rights to remain silent, including the presumption of innocence up until all reasonable doubt has been removed in a court of law. It is the responsibility of the state or prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense. It is common knowledge that there are exceptions to the rule of rights. In accordance with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, an accused person may be forced to cooperate with an inquiry by letting investigators collect physical evidence such as handprints, blood samples, hair samples, and other bodily fluids for DNA testing, photographs, voice recordings, and others.
When being questioned by the police and at the court hearing, it is required that the accused be given the opportunity to select a legal representative. The right of the accused to speak with a lawyer must be disclosed to him. To prevent the authorities from taking arbitrary measures against the accused, a lawyer is present during the interrogation and anytime the accused is questioned. The counsel’s fairness will not be questioned, and it does not need to be disclosed if a lawyer advises an accused person to be quiet during questioning. When being questioned by the police and at the court hearing, it is required that the accused be given the opportunity to select a legal representative. The right of the accused to speak with a lawyer must be disclosed to him. To prevent the authorities from taking arbitrary measures against the accused, a lawyer is present during the interrogation and anytime the accused is questioned. The counsel’s fairness will not be questioned, and it does not need to be disclosed if a lawyer advises an accused person to be quiet during questioning.
Can fundamental law be curtailed by a law?
According to Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution, no law may be passed by the state that restricts or abridges the fundamental rights of citizens. If such a law is passed, it will be null and void.
Similarly, to this, Article 13(1) stipulates that any pre-constitutional laws that infringe on basic rights in any way are invalid and ineffectual. Therefore, either presidential action or legislative enactment cannot violate fundamental rights. Therefore, Article 20(3) of the Constitution must be followed when interpreting either Section 108 of the Customs Act or Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. If there is any contradiction, the law will be void in the eyes of the law.
This implies that a person may be summoned by a Central Excise officer or a customs officer, and that person is obligated to tell the truth when answering questions. However, if the truth is self-incriminating and can be used against the person who was summoned as a witness, he may utilize the privilege provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Constitution’s broad definition of a crime in Article 20(3) states that a self-incriminatory statement is not admissible in any criminal or even quasi-criminal proceedings.
CONCLUSION
Immunity is the right against self-incrimination, which guarantees that an accused person won’t be subjected to physical or mental abuse by the authorities in an effort to coerce him into testifying against himself. Additionally, it ensured that a person’s accusation would not be proven by their silence. Additionally, it ensures that the right to remain silent will not lead to a negative inference because silence is not considered to be evidence. The defendant doesn’t speak because of shock, illiteracy, a foreign language, the need to protect someone, fear of retaliation, drug addiction, or the honest counsel of his attorney, among other possible explanations that the jury or the prosecution is unaware of.
Contrary to criminal violations, however, it appears that the courts have taken a stricter stance toward the use of the right to remain silent in administrative or economic offenses. Before the rules and advantages according to the accused under the ruling in the case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani 1978, they maintained that it is crucial to make a distinction between administrative investigative provinces and criminal procedures.
REFERENCES