The Right to Silence: An Overview of Article 20(3) in India

What is the Right to Silence?

The right to silence is a crucial legal principle that protects individuals accused of a crime. It allows them the option to remain silent and refrain from answering questions or providing information that could incriminate them in a court of law. This right is founded on the essential notion that no individual should be forced to serve as a witness against themselves, ensuring the integrity of the legal process and the right to a fair trial.

Constitutional Provision

Yes, the Constitution of India guarantees this right. Specifically, Article 20(3) states that no person accused of an offense can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This provision implies that individuals possess the right to silence during police interrogations, court proceedings, or any other legal contexts.

Who Can Exercise the Right to Silence?

Article 20(3) is applicable exclusively to individuals accused of an offense. It does not extend to witnesses, as they are not facing accusations. Moreover, the protection offered by Article 20(3) is not available to individuals being interrogated under the Customs Act, 1962, or the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, as these individuals are not considered "accused" under criminal law. The protections under Article 20(3) activate only when a person is formally recognized as an accused individual.

Exceptions to the Right to Silence

• Public Safety and National Security: The right to silence is not absolute. In circumstances where public safety or national security is at risk, authorities may compel individuals to disclose information or respond to inquiries to avert possible threats or investigate serious matters.
• Criminal vs. Civil Cases: In India, the right to silence is restricted to criminal cases. If individuals were granted this right in civil cases, it could lead to leniency, potentially increasing crime rates.
• Judicial Interpretation: Courts may not view silence favorably. If a person remains silent in a suspicious manner, this silence may be interpreted as evidence of guilt. Additionally, if compelling evidence exists against an individual, their refusal to answer questions can negatively impact their standing in the eyes of the court or investigative bodies.

Supreme Court Verdict: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India in 1978 significantly impacted the interpretation of rights under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 21, asserting that any deprivation of the right to life and personal liberty must adhere to a fair, just, and equitable legal procedure in criminal cases. This principle is often referred to as 'due process,' underscoring the necessity of following proper legal protocols to ensure justice.