Advt Riyaz —Some points on Hon’ble NAVJ’s online speech(12.04.2020)on the topic Article 20(3) of Constitution of India General introduction of Part III of COI Article 21, First Amendment of COI – Sankari Prasad Case, Provisional
Article 20(3) of Constitution of India
General introduction of Part III of COI
Article 21, First Amendment of COI – Sankari Prasad Case, Provisional
Parliament-Role of Constituent Assembly.
Article 32 of COI-Justice Fazal Ali is best remembered for his powerful
dissent in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 a case decided by
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. A. K. Gopalan, a
Communist leader had challenged his detention under the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950 as violative of various fundamental rights including
right to life under Article 21. While the majority agreed with the
government’s view and upheld the detention, Justice Fazal Ali dissented
and gave a wider interpretation to fundamental rights. This dissenting
judgment by him, later became the law in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India (1978). Justice Fazal Ali was in the Supreme Court for almost 2
years and dissented 6 judgments and out of which 3 judgments became
the law of the land.
Article 20(3) of COI
it is a right pertaining to a person accused of an offence.
it is a protection against compulsion to be a witness; and.
it is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving
evidence against himself.
The word “person” referred in the Article includes “incorporated
company or any other body corporate”
Bombay High Court Full Bench Says= Yes;
Calcutta HC Div Bench Says= No;
Supreme Court “Yet to decide”
What is Offence: Section 3 (38) of General Clauses Act.
3 (38) “offence” shall mean any act or omission made punishable by
any law for the time being in force;
Scope of 132 of Evidence Act
Double Jeopardy- search & Seizure-testimonial compulsion- proceedings
before authority and judicial forum
AIR 1953 SC 325
AIR 1992 SC 259
AIR 1961 SC 29 (page38)
AIR 1965 SC 654
[4/13, 07:48] Sekarreporter 1: whether enquiry is `accusation’ within the meaning of Evidence Act
AIR 1976 SC 1167 (para 9)
1954 SCR 1077 = AIR 1954 SC 300 M.P Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, the
8-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the drafters of the
Constitution did not intend to subject the power of search and seizure to a
fundamental right of privacy.
1962 SCR (3) 10
State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad decided by 11 judges Bench.
Whether methods of gathering evidence such as taking fingerprint
samples, handwriting samples, DNA collection etc are constitutionally
valid methods.
To solve the above question it is important to analyze the term
“witness” in Article 20(3) and find out the ambit of its inclusion.
Whether being in police custody ipso facto means that the witness had
been compelled or not.
2010 (7) SCC 263 (para 153)
Selvi Vs State of Karnataka- interrogation techniques narco-analysis, the
lie-detector test, and brain-mapping
Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned
techniques violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’
enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
Whether the investigative use of the impugned techniques
creates a likelihood of incrimination for the subject?
Whether the results derived from the impugned techniques
amount to ‘testimonial compulsion’ thereby attracting the bar of
Article 20(3)?
Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned
techniques is a reasonable restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as
understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution?
[4/13, 07:49] Sekarreporter 1: 1970 SCR (3) 530
Voice Sample- Art 20 (3)- Section 53 of CrPC
Ritesh Sinha vs UP
2019 (8) SCC 1
Courts ordinarily do not interfere in matters of investigation by police-
Power and conduct of investigation by police
2014 (2) SCC 532
2003 (2) SCC 649
2009 (14) SCC 184
Notes by M.Mohamed Riyaz
