article 20(3)
Diana
(Querist) 06 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
Is article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution applicable in civil proceedings?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 06 August 2009
from the bare perusal of the said provision if find to be confined to criminal matters only.
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
(Expert) 06 August 2009
No person accused of any offence shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.
criminal proceding
Advocate SK Rohilla New Delhi
(Expert) 06 August 2009
The greatest heritage of Democracy to the mankind is the right to personal liberty and dignity. The right to personal liberty is the foundation stone of fundamental rights, without its significance all other rights pale into insignificance and one of such right is envisaged in Article 20.
In the jurisprudence of constitutional law, Article 20(3) gives protection against testimonial compulsion.
The prohibitions imposed by Article 20 are directly relevant to the criminal process. While clause (1) is concerned with the substantive law of criminal liability and penalty, clauses (2) and (3) are concerned with the stage of procedure. Article 20(3) guaranteed that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It’s a rule against self incrimination. To attract the protection of Article 20(3), two conditions should be satisfied (1) the person concerned should be an “accused” of an offence and (2) he has been compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra interpreted the expression “to be a witness” very widely so as to include oral documentary and testimonial evidence unless and until a person is accused of a criminal offence no immunity under Article 20(3) is available to him. Immunity starts from the stage when the F.I.R. is lodged. A person against whom an F.I.R. (in respect of an offence) is lodged falls within the expression, person accused of an offence. (Ramanlal Shah v. D.K. Guha, AIR 1973 SC 1196).
Compulsion has been held to include in Nandini Satpathy’s case AIR 1978 SC 1026 not only physical duress, but psychic torture, atmospheric presume, environmental coercion tiring interrogative prolixity, overbearing and intimatatory methods and the like.
In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, (AIR 1961 SC 1808) it was held that the interpretation of the pharse “to be witness” is not equivalent to furnishing evidence, that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statement but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant of a trial to determine the guilt of innocence.
Protection does not extend to thumb impression. When self incriminatory statement is made without any compulsion or inducement but voluntarily, the protection is not available. It is also not available to retracted confession and tape-recorded conversations.
I hope this vanish your doubt clearly.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 06 August 2009
good work Mr. Rohilla.
accept my thanks.
i ve copied the content.
Arul Kumar
(Expert) 07 August 2009
Mr. Rohilla,
Thanks for good explanation.
