Article 20

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

CAN A PERSON ALLEGATED OF AN OFFENCE SEEK PROTECTION UNDER

ARTICLE 20(3) OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION


Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution states that “no person accused of an offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself. The ingredients to seek protection under Article 20(3)
of Indian Constitution is that:
• The person should be an accused of an offence
• The accused compelled to be witness
• The accused compelled to give evidence against himself
In order to seek protection under Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution, a person shall be formally
accused for an offence levelled on him resulting to prosecution. A formal accusation may include
lodging of First Information Report, formal complaint filed against a person and it is not necessary
that a trail or inquiry to be commenced against him. This also makes clear that no person can claim
protection, if at time he made the statement he was not accused but becomes an accused afterwards.
This doesn’t apply to department enquiries against the government servants as they can’t be said
to be “accused of an offence”.
JUDGEMENT
• M P Sharma V. Satish Chandra[AIR 1954 SC 300]: The Court held that a person whose
name mentioned in First Information Report (FIR) as an accused can claim protection
under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. This privilege available at both trail and pre-
trail stage i.e, when the police investigation is going on, a person regarded as the accused
or even if name not mentioned as accused.
• Nandhini Satpathy V. P L Dani [AIR 1977 SC 1025]: Former Chief Minister called by
Vigilance Police for purpose of examination for case under Prevention of Corruption Act
1947 and she denied to answer list of questions by claiming protection under Article
20(3) of Indian Constitution. The Court held that this article aim at protection of accused
from unnecessary police harassment and right against self incrimination available to
witness and accused in the same manner at every stage where information is furnished.
Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution is applicable at stage of police investigation when the
information extracted. The right to remain silent can be used as protection by suspect as
well.
• Balkrishan A Devidayal V. State of Maharashtra[1981 AIR 379]: Under Section 173 of
CrPC powers officers to submit Investigation report or charge sheet. RPF officers
(Railway Police Force) are not empowered under section 173 so the complaint filed by
them against accused can’t be treated as a formal accusation or complaint so he cannot
claim privilege or protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution.
• Maneck V. Naryananlal[AIR 1959 Bom 320]: Formal accusation against person required
to assert rule against self incrimination. This rule not applied based only on general
investigation and inquiries.
• Joseph v. Narayana[AIR 1964 SC 1552]: It was held that a person is said to be an accused
of an offence when an accusation of committing an offence is put against him and
accusation is of such nature that it will led to further prosecution of the accused.
• Vera Ibrahim V. State of Maharashtra[AIR 1976 SC 1167]: It was observed that no benefit
under this Article is available to a person who is arrested on mere suspicion without FIR
being filed against him or if there is immaterial information in Panchanama Report as such
person would not be coming under the ambit of “formal accusations.” Meaning thereby, it
was the opinion of the Hon’ble Court that this right extends to only those against whom a
formal accusation has been levelled.
• Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujrat[(1991) 4 SCC 406]: It was clarified
that a party who is alleged to be in contempt of court will not be covered by the head of
“accused person” for the purposes of Article 20(3). The benefits under the said Article only
extend to criminal proceedings and contempt proceedings are not a part of it.
• B. Shah V. D. K. Guha[AIR 1964 SC 1196]: The question, at what step a person suspect
can avail the privileges under this provision was answered by the court. It was opined that
after the addition of the name of the person so accused of an offence is entered into the FIR
and an order of the Magistrate for further investigation is passed, the protection under this
Article can be pursued.
• Balasaheb V. State of Maharashtra[1994 Cri LJ 3044]: It was observed that a witness in
one case who is also an accused in another case pertaining to same subject matter would
not be in position to claim absolute immunity or protection but he may deny to respond to
those questions which tend to incriminate him.
CONCLUSION
Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution aims to shield citizens from Authorities pointless activities. It
safeguards against Legislative, Executive and Judicial activities. It provides protection against self-
incrimination and gives the accused the right to remain silent over any matter which tends to
incriminate him. This article extends to the persons who are compelled to be a witness and also
covers searches and seizures wherein, an accused or the person being searched is under no
obligation to be a part of the search. If any statement is made on some finding then it will not be
protected under Article 20(3). The law says that an accused cannot be tortured or forced to make
a confession and no duress can be exercised on him to obtain information out of him. In such cases,
the privilege under Article 20(3) would be attracted.

You might also like