ARTICLE 20: RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
ARTICLE 20: RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
WRITTEN BY: PRATYKSHA PRIYA
3rd YEAR BLS LLB
MKES
COLLEGE OF LAW
EDITED BY: VAISHNAVI K. PARATE
LL.M 1ST YEAR (CRIMINAL LAW)
SHRI.
NATHMAL GOENKA LAW COLLEGE, AKOLA
INTRODUCTION
The constitution gives various rights to the people to
save themselves from the state and other people who try to infringe on their rights
or exploit them on any basis, be it any kind of abuse or violence. Article 12
to 35 contained in part 3 of the Indian Constitution deals with fundamental rights.
The fundamental rights in India have been taken from the constitution of the
USA. In these fundamental rights, one of the most important rights is provided
by Article 20 of the Indian Constitution which is protection against the conviction
of offences. This fundamental right safeguards the rights of convicts or
accused.
Article 20 is divided into three clauses.
1. Article
20(1)- no ex post facto. This article provides that no person shall be
convicted for any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the
commission of the act
2. Article
20(2)- No double jeopardy. This article provides that no individual shall be
punished or prosecuted for the same offence more than once.
3. Article
20(3)- no self incrimination. This article says that no one can be compelled to
be a witness against himself.
ARTICLE 20
According to article 20(3), no one can force an
accused to be a witness against himself and he can remain silent over any matter.
Article 20(3) was added to the constitution in the year 1949. In India, the right
to remain silent is only limited to criminal cases but In the United States, it
is available for both civil cases and criminal cases. Therefore, under civil
proceedings, a person cannot refuse to answer a question Using the defence of Article
20(3).
CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
The right to remain silent is not only there in our
constitution, it is also present in the American constitution as a part of
Miranda right after the famous case of Miranda vs Arizona in 1966 in which the US
court gave the landmark judgement that an arrested individual is entitled
against the right to self-incrimination and was contained under the fifth amendment
of the US constitution. It is important to note that protection under this article
is not available to people who are interrogated under the customs act 1962, or the
foreign management act 1999 since the person is not accused or convicted for an
offence and isn’t entitled to a lawyer. So, it can be seen that the provision
of Article 20(3) only comes into effect once the person is placed in the
position of the accused.
NATURE AND SCOPE
The principle of Occam’s Razor, says that for
explaining a thing no more assumption should be made than necessary, this protection
is not extended to civil cases as using it in civil cases may protect individuals
from further proceedings which may be criminal in nature. There are numerous
landmark judgements based on this article in which the apex court has time and
again held that the rights given to the accused through this article should be
judiciously followed and he should not be forced by any means to say anything
to the officials and even the officials can’t force the accused for the same. In the landmark judgement of Nandini Satpathy vs
P.L Dani, the court held that if the witness can reasonably sense the peril of
the prosecution, he gains the privilege of remaining silent. The court further
observed that a police officer is a person in authority and compelling a person
to answer a question within the limits of the police station would lead to a violation
of Article 20(3).
CONCLUSION
This article does not provide blanket protection to witnesses being questioned by officials of the enforcement directorate. This provision comes into effect only after a formal arrest. The supreme court has separated witnesses from the protection of article 20 (3) in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's formal arrest only so that the police officials do not misuse their powers and it also checks till the formal arrest only as interrogation by the other officials is not taken into account and no one can use this right for the same.
REFERENCES:
https://www.studyiq.com/articles/article-20-of-indian-constitution/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-20/
https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/article-20-of-indian-constitution
Comments
Post a Comment