The Supreme Court (SC) has recently refused to hear a plea by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister seeking bail in the excise policy case. 

• The case is related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, under which Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has demanded the custody of the Delhi Deputy Chief Minister.
• The Prevention of Corruption Act is a statutory act to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.
• The plea was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution rather than the Section 482 of the CrPC.
• Article 32 guarantees the right to move the SC to enforce Fundamental Rights and empowers the SC to issue directions or orders or writs for that purpose.
• SC has ruled that he had a right against self-incrimination.

Section 482 of the CrPC

• It lays down three purposes for which High Court (HC) can exercise its inherent power:
• To make orders to give effect to any order under the Code
• To prevent abuse of the process of any court
• To secure the ends of justice

An individual’s right against self-incrimination

• It originated in Roman law, and evolved under the English jurisprudence.
• In United States’ Constitution: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, without due process of law.
• In Indian Constitution: Article 20(3) in Part III (Fundamental Rights)-No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• It gives the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to remain silent in an interrogation.
• It also ensures that police cannot coerce anyone to confess to a crime and become convicted based on that confession.
• It extends only to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings or proceedings which are not of criminal nature.
• In India, the protection against self-incrimination extends to both oral evidence and documentary evidence. However, it does not extend to:
• Compulsory production of material objects
• Compulsion to give thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimens
• Compulsory exhibition of the body.

Earlier SC rulings on right against self-incrimination:

• In 1961 case of “The State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad”, SC ruled that obtaining photographs, fingerprints, signatures, and thumb impressions will not violate the right against self-incrimination of an accused.
• There is a difference between being a witness and from “furnishing evidence”.
• In 2019, case of Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh, the SC broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples.
• It also stated that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.
• In 2010, case of Selvi v State of Karnataka, the SC ruled that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would lead to violation of the right against self-incrimination.
• However, obtaining a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample from the accused is permitted.
• Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, if an accused refuses to give a sample, the court can draw adverse inferences against him.
• In case of the Satish Chandra vs. M.P. Sharma, SC ruled that the term "Witness" includes both oral and written testimony.
• Authorities can search any location and confiscate any document but any information that the accused provides is voluntarily acceptable.
• In case of the Maneck vs. Narayanlal, SC ruled that this rule cannot be applied based only on general investigations and inquiries.
• This right is available to both the witness and the accused in the same manner and it is applicable at every stage where information is provided.