Article 20(3) of constitution

Rajesh Tandon (Querist) 14 August 2013 This query is : Resolved
This is a query related to self-incrimination under article 20(3) of Indian Constitution & principle of natural justice. The query is as under:-
a) QUERRY NO1- can the protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution be claimed by an employee who is served with a show cause notice. The administrative authorities may be right in serving a show cause notice on account of giving an opportunity to employee of natural justice. The issue is that protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution towards the right of self-incrimination is available at pre-trial and trial stage. So is the stage of show cause notice considered under pre-trial stage? If not, is this protection still available at the show cause notice stage.
b) QUERRY NO 2- Is the protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution, an absolute protection /right enjoyed under fundamental rights .
c) QUERRY NO 3 A is a government employee. He does an oversight in his job and there is a lapse because of this oversight. The administrative authorities seek his comments/explanation. A offers his comments/explanation but offers a very large comments/explanation with the other related issues which he feels has a bearing in the case since he feels that despite accepting his oversight, the issue was not such big so as to call for comments/explanation and he feels that basically the comments/explanation asked for our with the intention to fix him. On being asked by administrative authorities to stick to the point and not to connect of the other issues, A does not change his explanation so offered with the reasoning that principle of natural justice requires that nobody should be condemned without giving a proper hearing and therefore howsoever lengthy his version may be and how soever administrative authorities may feels that the issues raised by him are not directly connected to the explanation sought for, he has a right to offer his defence under the principle of natural justice. More so, A further adds that he enjoys protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution i.e silence of accused and not to be witness against himself and yet he has atleast offered the comments. Now administrative authorities can not force/compel him to reduce the contents and offer the single line comments of only regretting the oversight on their line of thinking since it violates the basic tenets of Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution as this tantamounts to his compulsion by administrative authorities. In fact, A feels that this single line comment will be devoid of issues which he feels are essential to bring out mala fide intentions of administrative authorities and thus the administrative authorities will get a chance to fix him. Is this version/grounds taken by A for not reducing the comments/explanation & offering largish comments with other issues & coupled with accepting his mistake , legally sustainable and more so at the stage of seeking explanation. Is this right of protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution can be claimed by A at this stage of explanation. Would A be considered accused at this stage of explanation.

d) QUERRY NO 4 On what grounds, an accused can claim protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution if he/she is put under video surveillance or tape-recorded conversation since if he claims protection under article 21 of Indian constitution (right of privacy under the right to life and liberty), it is still understood on the ground of his/her privacy being infringed upon but what is not understood is claiming protection under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution especially since there is no element of compulsion or coercion involved in surveillance. In this connection refer a similar citation R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra.

Follow Query

Report Abuse